A Skeptical Post About…Kirk Cameron!?

In honour of the 150^th anniversary of the original publishing of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” a group of individuals have banded together to distribute free “special edition” copies of the book to university students across America (unfortunately, for reasons unknown to yours truly, Canada {and the rest of the world for that matter} have been left out of this campaign)!  This special edition contains a new 50 page introduction, which strives to provide “new” insights to Darwin’s masterpiece.    

Unfortunately, the group banding together to distribute this altered version of Darwin’s work is lead by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort (here by to be referred to as Mr C+C).  “The Origin of Species” will be reproduced in its entirety, but the “special” 50 page introduction has been added, and this introduction will serve as a platform for intelligent design and christian evangelism gospel.    

Before getting into this topic further, let me provide you with some background information on Mr. C+C.

Kirk Cameron is most notably known for his role as Mike Seaver on the popular 80’s sitcom “Growing Pains”.  Ray Comfort is an evangelical minister originally from New Zealand.  Mr. C+C, both christians, (evangelical christians to be exact) met several years ago and created their own ministry, Way of the Master (WOTM).  For a more in depth understanding of Mr. C+C vision, check out their christian propaganda machine….

Oops…I mean website:

http://www.wayofthemaster.com/

Once at the WOTM website you can learn all sorts of interesting things!  For instance you can learn about how you are not following Mr. C+C’s version of the 10 commandments, so you are going to hell.  Or you can learn about how family members who have died from cancer (and are not part of Mr. C+C’s ministry are going to hell).  Or you can learn about how any individual who is not part of Mr. C+C’s ministry is going to hell!  Really positive and up-lifting information!   

But I digress…

I have not been able to obtain a free copy of Mr. C+C’s version of “The Origin of Species” (copies are available on their website for only a few dollars, but frankly I refuse to pay for anything that will somehow contribute to Mr. C+C cause, which will be outlined below) but the “special” introduction (written by Mr. Ray Comfort) has been posted on Mr. C + C’s website:

http://assets.livingwaters.com/pdf/OriginofSpecies.pdf 

I have gone over the document, and…well…what can I say…?

It is exactly what I imagined it would be!  Each paragraph is laced with numerous logical fallacies.  Furthermore the document is filled with inaccuracies, misunderstandings (usually related to science + evolution), and out and out false hoods to numerous to name.  Honestly, it would take me weeks to pick apart all of the errors made by Mr. Comfort, and annotate proper corrections.  But don’t just take my word for it…when you have a moment take a look at the document.   

Alright…

With all of that out of the way…onto the topic of this blog post!  The following video was recently put out by Mr. C+C regarding the distribution of their “special edition” of “The Origin of Species”.

1^st off, let us get the following out of the way.  This blog post is not intended to be a debate regarding whether or not god exists.  Instead this blog post is meant to address the inaccuracies propagated by Mr. C+C in their video.    

With that in mind, let us analyze the statements made by Mr. C+C shall we!

At the very beginning of the video: “One by one our god given liberties are being taken away from us”

This statement is simply untrue.  1^st off, no liberty is “god-given”.  Liberties are given by the society that we live in.  Liberties change and evolve as a society changes and evolves.  Liberties evolve as the individuals within a society decide that they should.  2ndly, as outlined in the above statement, liberties are not being taken away.  The liberties we enjoy are simply evolving to better reflect the current beliefs/values of our society as a whole. 

Also at the beginning of the video: “Our children are not able to pray in public” and “Are children are no longer able to freely open a bible in school”

Again, this is simply incorrect.  Any child is free to pray in public.  However what is not tolerated, is forcing all children to pray in public (say at the beginning of each school day).  What Mr. C+C seem to forget is that not everyone is a member of the WOTM ministry.  Additionally, children are also free to read the bible in public, no different then I am free to read “The God Delusion” by Mr. Richard Dawkins.  What is not tolerated is to hold an audience captive and make them listen to you read from your version of the bible.    

At the 00:15 mark: “The 10 commandants are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places”

And this is the way that it should be.  Again, I think that Mr. C+C forget that not everyone is a member of their WOTM ministry, or even a member of the christian faith.  Consequently, it is not appropriate to put this document in a public place, because it is not a view/value system that adequately represents the views of our society as a whole.  Additionally, church and state are separate for a reason.  This means that despite the “majority” religion/faith at any given time, each and every individual is has the right (or liberty it you will) to FREELY practice the religion of his/her choosing (and this includes Mr. C+C). 

Regarding statements made at the at 00:45 mark:

Simply untrue.  Individuals in these fields are not brain washed.  Instead the individuals in these fields entered into them with a belief system/world view already in place, and the field that they entered is simply an extension of that belief system/world view.  On a personal note I have graduated from 2 science/health care programs, and I do not recall any classes, courses, or lectures that attempted to “brainwash” me into becoming agnostic or atheist.    

Regarding the comments made at the 01:04 mark:

That’s funny.  I always thought that intelligent designers (which Mr. C+C claim to be) stated that the “intelligent designer” was not the christian god, but a non-descript omnipotent being.  In this statement Mr. C+C reveal their true colours.  They are not trying to advance science and our understanding of the natural world, instead they are selfishly trying to advance their own belief system, and force it upon other people. 

Regarding the comments made at 01:40:

Oh I love this one!  The creationist…Oops…I mean intelligent designers attempt to link Adolf Hitler to Charles Darwin.  Charles Darwin spoke of evolution and “survival of the fittest”, and his observations where an initial attempt to describe the manner in which creatures in nature (including human beings) evolve.  Adolf Hitler on the other hand, spoke of eugenics, which is the selective breeding (and in the case of Hitler killing/murder/genocide) with the aim of “improving” the human race.  2 VERY different concepts!  Additionally, I must admit that I find it extremely interesting that Mr. C+C attempt to link Darwin to Hitler, but fail to mention the extremely close relationship of the 3^rd Reich and the christian church all throughout the Second World War (as outlined in “God is Not Great” by Mr. Christopher Hitchens).  Interesting omission…but I digress  

Regarding comments made at the 01:45 mark:

Mr. C+C attempt to paint Darwin as both a racist and a sexist.  Funny, Mr. C+C do not want to speak to the theory put forth by Darwin, instead they would much rather attack him personally.  Additionally, Mr. C+C fail to mention the NUMEROUS examples of racism and sexism within their own sacred text, the bible. 

Regarding the statements made at 01:50:

This is a complete misunderstanding of the work of Darwin and evolution as a whole.  The theory of evolution does not speak to the origin of life.  Instead, the theory speaks to how different species have evolved over time.  The theory of evolution does not pretend to have the answer to the origin of life despite what Mr. C+C would have you believe.   

Regarding the comments made at the 02:05 mark:

Again, this is a complete misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.  Put simply, Mr. C + C do not understand the science behind the theory of evolution.  Further proof of this point is Mr. Comfort’s $10,000 prize for anyone that can prove evolution by providing an example of one species giving way/giving birth to another (for example a dog giving birth to a cat). 

Regarding comments made at the 02:17 mark:

What else can I say other then these statements are extremely dishonest.  Albert Einstein did not believe in a personal god.  This is an assertion that is often attributed to Albert Einstein by many theists, and it is simply incorrect.  Regarding the rest of the individuals named by Mr. C+C, these statements are also extremely misleading.  Yes, some of these individuals did believe in a personal god, but their belief in a god, does not invalidate the theory of evolution.  Additionally, many of the individuals named by Mr. C+C lived in a time when science was, put simply, not where it is today.  With this information in mind, putting for the names of scientists from decades (or even centuries ago) that believe in a personal god (with the intent of disproving evolution) is not all that impressive. 

Regarding the comments made at the 03:00 mark:

Great!  Mr. C+C, let me personally extend you an invite to contribute to the scientific literature!  But that would require you to put forth some sort of testable hypothesis (other than the statement, “god did it”).  Science is all about putting forth a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis.  Instead you complain about not being allowed into the scientific community, but your only contribution seems to be “god did it”.  When asked to explain a phenomenon , you state “this is evidence of god as an intelligent designer”.  Then later when said phenomenon is demonstrated to be a product of evolution, you move the goal posts and pick some other phenomena and continue with the line of reasoning of “god did it”.  You have not been included in the scientific community or academia because you have nothing to contribute. 

Regarding the comments made at 03:15:

Echoing the statements made above, Mr. C + C mistake being “censored” for being ignored for not having a single solitary thing to contribute to science/academia.    

Regarding the comments made at the 04:20 mark:

Again showing their true colours, I would argue that Mr. C + C are proud of the fact that they are lying about their intentions with the distribution of their “special edition” of “The Origin of Species”.  There intent is not to contribute to the scientific literature.  Instead their intent is to spread their faith/religion.  I have no problem with this, what I have a problem with is when it is done in a deceptive manner to unsuspecting individuals.  Essentially, Mr. C+C are being completely dishonest about their intentions, and are lying to the individuals they are distributing the books to. 

Hmmm…

Does not seem very christian of them does it?

 

Logical Fallacies 101: The Strawman

Logical Fallacies 101 is a regular segment of the Skeptical Samurai blog that deals specifically with logical fallacies (an introduction to logical fallacies can be found here: http://theskepticalsamurai.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/logical-fallacies-101/ ).  It is my hope that Logical Fallacies 101 will help, you the reader, to both cultivate and expand your logic/reasoning skills and as a result become a better critical thinker. 

This segments logical fallacy is: “The Strawman”

There are many theories as to the origin of the name of this logical fallacy, but according to my research there does not appear to be a “confirmed” origin story.  The basic principle of this fallacy is that the guilty individual is setting up a target that will be easy to knock down/will offer no resistance (hence the term Strawman).  The Strawman fallacy is committed when an individual ignores their opponent’s argument and substitutes a distorted/exaggerated/misrepresented version of that argument.  Instead of addressing the argument put forth by their opponent, the individual committing this fallacy will instead speak to the distorted/exaggerated argument that he/she has created. 

Thought of in a more linear fashion:

1. Person A puts forth position X
2. Person B puts forth position Y (in place of position X, which is a distorted version of position X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

An example of a Strawman argument is as follows:

1. Person A: I did not support the policies of former U.S. president George W Bush.  I think that the United States invaded Iraq under false pre-tenses and that the U.S. Armed Forces have no right to be in Iraq.  I think that current U.S. president Barack Obama should withdraw the American Armed Forces as soon as possible. 
2. Person B: Your lack of support of the “War on Terror” indicates that you are against the United States and support the actions of Terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.   

As demonstrated in the above example, the problem with a Strawman argument is that it fails to address the issue/topic being presented.  Instead (knowingly or unknowingly), the individual guilty of committing this fallacy presents a distorted version of the original argument that is typically much easy to address/attack and misrepresents the initial argument being put forth.   

Alright, so now we know what a “Strawman Argument” is…

So what can we do about it!?

There are several ways to combat this logical fallacy. 

The 1^st defence against this fallacy is to address the questions raised within the Strawman argument, and address them directly.  The main weakness of this approach is that you are inadvertently providing validation to your opponent’s distorted/false/incorrect claims by addressing them rather refuting them directly.   

The 2^nd type of defence is to question the argument put forth by your opponent.  More specifically, ask your opponent to explain how his/her Strawman argument is linked to your initial argument, indicating that you see no link between the 2 lines of thought.  It should be noted, similar to the above example, this technique can backfire…as once again, by addressing rather than refuting your opponents claims you are inadvertently validating them. 

The last (and in my opinion the MOST effective) line of defence is to restate your original argument and draw attention to the fact that (knowingly or unknowingly) your opponent is attempting to distort your original statement.  Put simply, your opponent is attempting to put words into your mouth!  The best defence against this logical fallacy is simply to openly acknowledge this fact and not let your opponent get away with it!

Go forth…

Think critically…

And avoid fallacious arguments…

Susan Somers is a Moron!!!

A bit harsh compared to my usual tone…

But hey…

If you are going to spew humbug like this…you deserve every bit of it…

Below is an article that features some recent comments from Suzanne Somers regarding the death of Patrick Swayze (who recently died as a result of complications from pancreatic cancer)

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/holistic_hoo_ha_vARabuMuZS5Cz1ja2EiEcO

I know what you are thinking…

Great!  Another “celebrity” speaking out about science/medicine!  Forget listening to the men and women who spend years (and in some cases decades) becoming a healthcare professional, I am going to take my advice from a former sitcom actress and proprietor of one of the most useless pieces of fitness equipment know to humanity (see: thigh master)!

But enough with the ad hominem attack…

Where to start with this one…

The 1^st question that comes to mind is…

Does Ms Somers even know what cancer is?  Does she have an appreciation for the different types of management strategies for different cancers?  Based on the comments quoted in this article, in my personal opinion she must not.  Her comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of cancer.  For the sake of context I will include a brief explanation here:

Cancer is an abnormal growth of cells which proliferate in an uncontrolled manner.  Additionally, cells that are cancerous can metastasize (fancy medical speak for spread).  Cancer is not a single disease but instead is a type of disease processes that has tens of hundreds of different sub types.  Additionally, different cancers are treated and managed extremely differently.  In other words, there is not one specific treatment that works for all cancers.  The specific cancer treatment depends largely on where the cancer is located (or what type of cells are effected) and the progression (or stage) of the cancer. 

Regarding her comment: “they took a beautiful man” and” put poison in body”.

1^st off they did not “put poison in his body”.  Given the type of cancer, Mr Swayze would have received chemo therapy.  Chemo therapy is not poison.  Yes, it is extremely hard on the body (because chemo affects “regular” cells as well as cancer cells as currently, we do not have treatment modalities specific enough to target just cancer cells).  Ms. Somers’ description of chemo therapy as “poison” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the science behind the treatment of pancreatic cancer, thus giving her statements little if any credibility.

Then we have this gem of a statement: “Why couldn’t they have built him up nutritionally and gotten rid of the toxins”

Part of me thinks…

With the ignorance displayed in this comment…why do I even bother addressing it!?  But I digress…

Nutrition is an essential component of the treatment of cancer.  In fact nutrition is an essential component of health…PERIOD!  However, generally speaking, nutrition in isolation is not an effective treatment modality, and it is certainly not an effective treatment for pancreatic cancer.  Why you ask…as per the description given above, cancer is the abnormal growth of previously normal cells.  Nutrition (as a treatment modality) is incapable of having any sort of effect on the cell that can slow, stop or reverse the cancer process.  Put simply, nutrition (in isolation) is not an effect cancer treatment modality.    

…And then we have the mythical toxins!  “The toxin card” is an often played by propagators of humbug, such as that being put forth by Ms. Somers.  It serves as a safe non specific claim that sounds impressive to the lay person, but really does not hold any water.  What toxin is she referring to?  Could she be a little more specific?  It should be noted that some “toxins” are harmful at any dose, where as other are non toxic at certain doses, but toxic at others.  It seems rather irresponsible of Ms. Somers to claim that some sort of toxin caused Mr. Swayze’s death but does not identify which toxin she is referring to.  Furthermore, there are a variety of non toxic agents that can cause cancer.  For instance, the sun!  I wonder what, if any, treatment Ms. Somers has for the sun!?     

Yes, there are “toxins” that can cause cancer.   In healthcare these agents are referred to as teratogens, meaning that exposure to these agents can lead to abnormal cell division, which can progress to cancer.  However, there are also many “toxins” that do not cause cancer.  Identification of non specific “toxins” as the cause of Mr. Swayze’s death does nothing to contribute to the understanding of situation.  Just because something is a toxin does not mean that it causes cancer, and just because a substance causes cancer does not mean that it is a toxin. 

Furthermore, identification of a substance as a teratogen does not fix any damage already done.  This is one of the many difficulties in treating cancer.  Cancer treatment is extremely complex.  Unfortunately, treatment is not as easy as changing a person’s diet and “flushing the toxins out of the system”, thus reversing the damage done by cancer.  Again, Ms. Somers comments demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the pathophysiology behind cancer, further reinforcing that this is in no position to give medical advice.    

In conclusion, in light of the above information, Ms Somers should stick to what she knows best, making bad sitcoms and selling useless exercise equipment.

Once again…Skepticism At Work!!!

An interesting scenario the other day at work that served as an excellent reminder regarding the fallibility of human memory!

A female patient went “missing” (in actuality she did not go missing.  She had simply gone to go get some coffee from the hospital Timmy Hoes and forgot inform anyone.  Being as the Emerg that I work in is extremely busy with a high volume of traffic no one must have thought anything of her leaving the unit).  In order to facilitate her return to the unit a description of the woman went out. 

The description was as follows:

Caucasian female, approx 5’6, approx 130 lbs, blonde hair, wearing blue jeans and a pink tank top.

Approximately 30 minutes after the description went out the woman returned to the unit and all was well again.  Being curious regarding the human condition I went to introduce myself to the woman as one of the staff members (letting her know that if there was anything she needed to let me know).  While introducing myself I took note of her appearance and compared it to the description that had gone out not more than a half of an hour before.

She was definitely female.  She was also approx 5’6 and 130 lbs, but that is where the similarities ended.  She was Aboriginal, with jet black hair, and was wearing blue jeans (okay I guess that was correct as well!  haha!) with a black and white striped t-shirt!

A bit of a discrepancy wouldn’t you say!?

A large portion of the population seems to cling to the notion that human memory works similar to that of a camera, capable of taking snap-shots of moments in time.  In reality this is not even close to the truth.  Human memory is far from infallible and, depending on the circumstance, can actually be quite unreliable (trust me, I spend the majority of my professional life asking people to recall recent events surrounding an illness and am always amazed by peoples inability to remember what seem like the simplest details). 

So next time someone claims to have a photographic memory…

Be skeptical!

Yet another great Skeptical comedy routine!

The title says it all!

Enjoy!

Care to Have Your Mind Blown…?

Sit back…

Watch this Video…

And enjoy the eventual headache that will set in as a result of the process of thinking about the mysteries of your universe (or is that Multi-Verse!?)

More Martial Arts Mayhem!

More Martial Arts Mayhem!

I came across these videos (embedded below), a while back.  After doing past entry on martial arts, I thought that it would be fun to revisit these videos and look at them with a more “skeptical” eye.

1^st off let us introduce ourselves to the person in question.

‘Yanagiryuken’ is a Kiai Master/Daitouryu-Aikido Master.

His website:

http://www.kikou-kenkyujo.com/

And the translated page (using Google translator):

http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.kikou-kenkyujo.com/&ei=xWGFSqKoM6OntgfSgvCuCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dkikou%2Bkenkyujo%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DACA_en-GBCA309CA309

Not quite sure what a Kiai “master” is, as a Kiai is typically a noise (like a battle cry) made by martial arts practitioners (typically traditional martial arts practitioners, as I cannot say that I recall any Brazilian Jiu Jitsu practitioners utilizing this technique).  There are a variety of different definitions of the concept of kiai, but one can understand it as more or less summoning of one’s inner energy.  So with that in mind I assume that Yanagiryuken is claiming that he is some sort of master of summoning and channelling his inner energy.  Alright…

In addition to the above claim, Yanagiryuken claims to be capable of using and manipulating “chi” power.  “Chi” (also spelled “Ki”) is a concept often referred to in traditional martial arts (and various types of alternative/crap-based medicine) as an individual’s life force or inner strength.  Certain traditional martial arts claim to be able to harness this power, and apparently Yanagiryuken is one of these martial arts practitioners. 

Yanagiryuken claims to have fought in 200 Vale Tudo matches and claims to have never been defeated.  In order to fight him, you must be willing to put up a 500,000 yen fee, however if you defeat him he will pay you 1,000,000 yen (although it is not clear if he returns your 500,00 yen + an additional 500,000 or if he gives you 1,000,000 yen in addition to your 500,000 yen fee)

The video embedded below is of Yanagiryuken demonstrating this “powers” on some of his students:

Wow…

After watching this video, several questions come to mind…

1stly, does Yanagiryuken have “powers” or not?  Looking at this situation with a skeptical eye, one cannot automatically dismiss the notion that Yanagiryuken does not have the abilities that he claims to have.  It is entirely possible (though unlikely) that this gentleman does have some sort of “powers” that have, until this time, not been previously seen or described in the literature.  If Yanagiryuken does in fact have some sort of previously unidentified power/ability that would be extremely interesting (if for no other reason than it would completely change our current understanding of physics and the natural world). 

On the other hand, if Yanagiryuken does not have any “powers”, one has to wonder, does he simply believe his own hype or is he some sort of con artist.  Additionally, if Yanagiryuken does not have any “powers”, what are we to think of the actions of his students?  Why do they act in the manner they do when they are in Yanagiryuken’s presence. 

With the above questions in mind, it would be excellent if we could somehow test Yanagiryuken “powers”.  Ideally, we would be able to observe Yanagiryuken demonstrating his “powers” on an individual who is not under his sphere of influence (read as: someone who is not one of his students).  And wouldn’t you know it…just such a video exists and it is available on YouTube!

The videos embedded below (2 different cameras, same fight/encounter) are of Yanagiryuken in his most recent vale tudo match.

I had difficulty finding information of Yanagiryuken’s opponent, but from what I was able to uncover it appears that at the time of the video he was a legit MMA fighter (I was unable to determine if he was a professional or an amateur), held a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, and was proficient in some form of striking.

I remember when I 1^st watched these videos.  I thought that they were hilarious!  But now I find them rather hard to watch.  Essentially, we are watching a young healthy/legit fighter beat up on a delusional old man.  But, I digress… 

Viewing these videos, one has to assume that Yanagiryuken believes his own hype.  Why else would he put himself in front of a young MMA fighter willing to beat him down?  In the video, when Yanagiryuken is hit by his opponent he actually looks  shocked, his expression seems to indicate that he is truly amazed at what has happened.  I would argue that this further supports that notion that he believes his own hype.  So assuming that he does believe his own hype, one has to wonder how he got to this point.  Did it occur all at once or has it been a slow progression that has happened over the years. 

Additionally, how do we explain the actions of his students?  In the video we see several of his students in the background (one even comes to his aid at the end of the match).  Did they think that their master was going to come out of this encounter unharmed?  Did they actually believe that Yanagiryuken actually had the powers that he claimed to have?  Did they continue to follow him after this encounter? 

All interesting and thought provoking questions.   What do you think!? (read as: leave a comment below!)

I for one will never tire of the human condition…

And I will never tire of the process of skeptical inquiry…

Skepticism…at Work!?

Big news on the skeptical samurai front…

The Skeptical Samurai has finished school (well…at least for the time being)!

I have finished up my final clinical rotation and submitted my final paper. 

I have also started a new job!  I have a position as a Nurse Practitioner at one of the local emergency departments. 

It is an extremely challenging yet rewarding position.  Part of that daily “reward” is the opportunity to work on my proverbial “skeptical chops”…

Let me be more specific…

As my position is in the emergency department, I see a constant influx of new individuals each and every day.  It is my responsibility to assess and diagnosis each patient that I see.  After completing the process of assessment and diagnosis (which can take minutes to hours) it then becomes my responsibility to determine the disposition of each patient (“disposition” is fancy healthcare speak for determining if the patient will be discharged, observed further, referred, admitted, etc).  A vital part of the above process is completing a detailed health history with each patient.  Typically, this includes establishing the patient’s “chief complaint” (just what it sounds like) and the “history of the present illness” (the patient’s interpretation of the events associated with the chief complaint).

And this brings me to the topic of this blog post…

Correlation does not always imply causation!  In other words, just because two events are somehow related does not mean that one event caused the other!

Each day I find myself completely blow away by some individuals “ability” to link certain events together.

The majority of the time when a patient tells me about the events precipitating their visit to the emergency department, it all makes sense.  For example:

“I have a lot of pain in my right knee.  I was out playing soccer, attempted to kick the ball, my body went one way and my knee went the other.  I felt a popping sensation, I fell to the ground, had immediate pain in my right knee, I could not put weight on it then, and I cannot put weight on it now.  So I think that I may have injured my knee”

Pretty straight forward right!?  Makes sense, the patient sustained an obvious physical trauma, experienced associated pain, and that leads him to deduce that he has most likely injured his knee. However there are some patients that simply defy any and all logic or reason, for example: 

“I have had an itchy rectum for the last 6 months.  I woke up this morning and now my left eye also hurts.  Do you think that the two could be related” (I wish that I was making this one up, but this was an actual conversation that I had with a patient!).

Humans are hardwired to recognize patterns.  There are a variety of different theories as to why we are hard wired in this manner, but the long and short of it is that our brains seem to be primed to recognize patterns.  Unfortunately, this innate ability can sometimes lead us astray.  More specifically, it can lead us to seen patterns and causation where there are none.  As a result, an individual’s ability to think in a critical manner can be negatively affected, which can, I would argue, result in an individual making decisions that they may otherwise not have made.        

So what should you take from all of this?

As stated above, we are hard wired to recognize patterns.  However, we may recognize patterns where there are none.  In order words, we are attempting to bring order to a seemingly otherwise chaotic situation.  As being capable of critical thought, we must go beyond this innate drive to simply recognize patterns, and analyze a given situation to see if correlation does in fact imply causation, or if we are simply attempting to see a pattern where there is none.

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Presents: The G-Hunters!

The Skeptics Guide to the Universe is a Skeptical Podcast that addresses any and all issues pretaining to skepticism.

It is a great podcast and i suggest that you check it out!  You can download it on Itunes, or check out their website: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/

Below is a video recently put out by the SGU (embedded as 2 seperate clips).  The videos are a spoof on all of the “ghost-hunter” shows seen on TV these days.  Great stuff!

Enjoy!

How Skepticism Saved Me From Getting Ripped Off!

Well maybe I should not use the term “skepticism”…

But critical/rational thinking most definitely saved me from losing $1500!

I am in the process of selling off some items.  The purpose is twofold. 

1)      I have no use for the items anymore

2)      I am saving up funds for a motorcycle

So I put an old guitar up for sale (a guitar that I have had for some time but no longer play anymore).  I listed the guitar for $1500 and waited to see if I got any offers.  I immediately got an inquiry from an individual names Charles.  He was more than happy to take the guitar off my hands.  GREAT! (I thought to myself).  The only problem was that he lived in the USA.  Consequently he would be unable to personally come and pick up the guitar (as I currently reside in Manitoba, Canada). 

At this point my critical thinking skills kicked in and I thought to myself:

Why would a person from the USA being looking through the Canadian Buy/Sell website (where the guitar was listed).  The guitar is priced to sell, but the cost to ship the guitar would most likely negate the cost of purchasing the guitar used as opposed to simply buying the guitar new.  But hey, if this guy is willing to pay the money, that is not my problem!

During our email exchange, Charles informed me that he would not actually be shipping the guitar to the USA, but instead the UK (the reason he gave is that the guitar was a present for his father).  At this point Charles informed me that in addition to the $1500 for the guitar, he was also going to be sending me an additional $1500 to ship the guitar to the UK. 

Alright…

Now some red flags are going up!

Back into critical thinking mode:

Why is this guy willing to spend $3000 on a guitar that is definitely not worth that amount?  The guitar in question is an extremely nice guitar, but it is not worth $3000.  It is a hot rodded production guitar that has been appraised at $1700-$1800 (and all of the hot rodded components are available for purchase at most any guitar shop).  The guitar is not a custom, one-off or vintage instrument.  So why on earth would this guy be willing to pay so much for it?

I decided to proceed, but with caution…

I instruct Charles to send me a money order for $3000. 

One week later I receive a letter in the mail from a name and address that I do not recognize.  I open the letter and it contains a printed “check”, with my name on it, for $3000.  With no further contents in the letter I can only assume that this “check” is from Charles.  A quick Email exchange confirms that the letter was indeed from Charles (though his name is no were to be found on the letter or check).  I question him regarding why he sent me a check versus a money order (like I had asked for).  He informs me that the “check” is a certified check and is “the same thing as a money order”.  At this point he also tells me that I do not need to ship the guitar, but instead I need to wire the $1500 (for the shipping) to a shipping company that he has already made arrangements with. 

Some additional red flags going up…

I proceed to the bank to deposit the check.  The teller indicates to me that she cannot confirm that the check is indeed “certified”.  Additionally, she informs me that regardless of whether or not the “check” is certified, there is a 10 day hold on all out of country checks.  She does inform me that I do have access to up to $1500 of the funds (which I am told is the policy of most banks).  However, if the check bounces it is my responsibility to cover cost.          

Hmmm….

More red flags…

Using my better judgement/critical thinking, I decide NOT to access any of the funds, and wait for the check to clear before doing anything with the money.

I return home from the bank, check my email inbox and open a message from Charles.  The email contains the information for the “shipping company” that is going to transport the guitar.  However the inform does not contain the name of a company, just the name of a person. 

Hmm…

More red flags…

Are we starting to sense a pattern here…

I contact Charles and update him regarding the current situation.  He tells me “not to worry” that he is “good for the money” and to just “wire the money to the shipping company”.  I inform him that I do not feel comfortable doing that, and that I am going to wait the ENTIRE 10 days to ensure that the check does in fact clear.  After this email exchange I received daily messages from Charles requesting that I simply wire the money to the “shipping company” because he was “rather anxious to get the guitar to his father in the UK” and continued to reinforce that he is “good for the money”. 

Guess what happened….

His check bounced!  Additionally, the bank informed me that the “check” was mark as “fictions”

Despite several attempts I have yet to have heard back from Charles regarding the above situation.  I can only image that because his attempts to scam me failed, he has no further reason to communicate with me.

So why have I annotated this entire story?

Simple really…

To prove the point that critical thinking is not an abstract concept that only applies to individuals in the lab/classroom.  Critical thinking is an extremely valuable tool/skill set that can be used on a daily basis in a variety of different settings.  Hey it may even save you from getting ripped off some day!