Build a Better Tomorrow Today: Using Science and Skepticsm

Everyone is focusing on what is wrong with the world, when we should be turning our attention to what is great about it, and how we can make it better. That starts with becoming better thinkers and decision makers. Then, we can become leaders in anything we choose to do. 

"The point of an argument or debate should be progress, not victory." 

The initial intention behind the start of this blog was to help other people who were like me and felt lost amongst all of the spiritualness in the world. I could not find my place, but knew I was part of something bigger than just myself. Was I Apache, Navajo, or Hopi? Was I white? Where did my answers lie? In one of those tribal religions or perhaps in the white mans' religion? 

I am not trying to change people's minds about their beliefs just because I don't agree with them. I am not out searching the internet looking to debunk myths. I am simply trying to get people to think for themselves and become just a little more skeptical. But, when I say skeptical, I don't mean cynical. I mean scientifically-skeptical. A large portion of science and scientific skepticism is open-mindedness. That tenet should always be clear and present in the forefront of our minds. In order to understand science, you have to get to know skepticism. This is what makes us better critical thinkers. 

"You don't change people's minds, you give them the tools to decide on their own."

This is what science, critical thinking, and skepticism have done for me. These tools are proven to be the best ways for vetting new information and attaining knowledge. They can even act as a self-defense system for your brain!

My focus went from studying the things we don't know, to the things we are pretty certain about. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of these patterns I see in nature? These questions began to seem less relevant to me as my brain was now infatuated with learning as much as I could about the universe and our place in it. 

I started my journey thinking that science was all about math and facts. Cold, complex, and boring. Along the way, I found out that it was much more than that, it was "a way of thinking." Now, I see it as being humbling, awe-inspiring, and elegant.

"Who is making all the decisions about science and technology that are going to determine the kind of future our children will live in?" (Sagan 1996) 

 

Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose in 1996.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, are the implications to our civic duties. Socrates used to stress that it wasn't enough for the  people of Rome to vote. They needed to be well informed voters. Because, when we stop questioning authority, we leave ourselves open for them to take advantage. Then, the people don't run the government, the government runs the people. Thomas Jefferson was also a big fan of questioning authority because of these same reasons. 

Who will govern the governors?" There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government. (Jefferson 1903-04)

Benjamin Franklin has been quoted as saying, "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." I hold a similar belief. Socrates believed that ordinary citizens were not fit to govern themselves. He didn't believe that the general public was informed enough to make big decisions and often voted against their best interests. But, I have more hope for people and would like to see a world where more can think for themselves and are not afraid to question authority or the status quo. A place where we can argue constructively and find progress, despite any differences. The aim isn't to win debates, but to be just a bit more skeptical. About as much as you would be when buying a car from someone. It is especially important when we are most vulnerable. 

This is the difference that I would like to make in the world. If I could leave a trail for others to follow like bread crumbs, that would be fulfilling. Whether it is through a story or shared experience, the end result is finding some common uniting factor and building upon it. 

Original Artwork by Noah Nez.

Sources: 

Sagan, Carl. 1996. Charlie Rose. YouTube. Can be accessed online at: http://youtu.be/d8O1e_TZHZo.

Jefferson, Thomas. 1903-04. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government. Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors). 20 Vols., Washington, D.C. Can be accessed online at: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0350.htm.

Why I Care About Science and Skepticism and Why You Should Too

I get excited when I am talking about science, it's process, and the power it bestows. I am supremely passionate about the importance of critical thinking skills and the pivotal role scientific skepticism plays in making any endeavor successful. What draws me to both science and scientific skepticism, is how they can both be useful to everyone at any level. Kids, young adults, and up to professionals in any field. 

How does science and skepticism tie into your life?

I grew up hearing all kinds of stories from different cultures and as a kid I was a fan of reading scary camp fire tales. I was always a pretty avid reader and amongst the collection I consumed were books on the paranormal and supernatural. My cultural beliefs were full of the supernatural, so I already had a foundation in me for things like psychic, ghosts, and monsters like Bigfoot. Not too far removed from that, was new age mysticism. After I started getting into martial arts, I entered a world of eastern philosophy that is filled with energy charts and acupressure points. At some point, I just realized there must be a way to discern what is real and what is the truth as best as it can be defined. 

Being such a heavy reader as a child helped with my writing as I got older. The philosophy of martial arts from Bruce Lee lead me into studying Taoism, which prepared me for abstract thinking when I got to ethics and philosophy courses. I feel that my journey on the outside fringes of science ultimately lead me to where I am now. So, I speak from a place of personal knowledge on things I once believed whole heartedly. I make it a point to not dismiss the things I know nothing about. I usually only give my opinion on the things I have experience with and researched myself. 

After I got to college, my writing progressed from doing so many essays, technical papers, and projects. After college, I used those skills and combined them with a newfound love for science. Once I discovered how poor the general understanding of science was amongst the public, I quickly identified myself as being one of those people. Science literacy became my new interest. 

Why do I care? And why should others?

Carl Sagan was one of the most famous scientists to promote this brand of scientific skepticism. A large part of his work was in informing the public about the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of being able to differentiate the good from the bad. "Our world is built upon science and technology that people do not understand." If people are not informed, who will make the important decisions that affect the future of where science will take us? That decision should be left to the people. With all of the misinformation on the Internet and the fact that some beliefs can have harmful consequences like those concerning health, the question should be, why doesn't everyone care? Why don't you?

Enlightenment Through Empowerment

The thing that most consistently makes me happy, is helping others. I love it when people I know, or don't know, ask me questions. Whether it is about Native American culture or even things like the paranormal or supernatural, I am always intrigued to hear the next story. But, mostly my friends just ask me if a story is real or fake. I have had people write to me and introduce new mysteries and interesting research topics too.

People appreciate the thoughtfulness behind the responses more than the actual answers themselves. Usually, I think people are already leaning towards something not being true before they even ask me. Sometimes, things are just confusing due to all the noise on the Internet. Pick any subject, and like Alice go down the bunny hole where the information gets messy quick. Medicine has alternative medicine, astronomy has astrology, and physics has quantum new age mysticism. There is an imposter trying to cheaply imitate nearly every field of science. 

It is nice when people thank me for helping them find an answer, but the thing that makes me feel happy is when I can show them how to do it on their own. It's like helping others get fish by catching them myself. But, what my goal is for them to be able to catch their own fish. I would like it if people could better find things out for themselves. That is a good feeling. These are things I would do without being paid to do them. 

Ultimately, I like leadership roles and seek out teaching opportunities. That is probably why the most influential people in my life have been my Mother, philosophers, and science giants like Carl Sagan. Coaching is something I am passionate about because I understand the importance of learning and the ways that education can help people living in poverty to get out of it. So, there is no better feeling to me than knowing I have helped to give someone the tools to figure things out for themselves. That's real empowerment. 

What Makes You Angry About the World and What Do You Wish Was Different?

What constantly makes you mad about the world? What do you wish was different about it?

The thing that constantly makes me angry about the world is pseudoscience. It's misleading, often unethical, and even dangerous. People that use pseudoscience to knowingly deceive by operating off of others ignorance and vulnerabilities is the worst of the worst to me. The modern day snake-oil salesman. 

I wish that everyone could distinguish science from pseudoscience. I wish the world paid teachers good salaries, admired their roles more, and were held with more respect. Maybe that would turn out better science teachers and in effect improve general science education. 

I wish critical thinking was taught on a scale that rivals other subjects like the most common academic ones so that people would be given decision making and tools for reason to figure things out for themselves. It would make it tougher to be taken advantage of, and at the same time, easier to acquire new knowledge. Learning critical thinking is like self-defense training for your brain. Mental Jiu-Jitsu. 

I wish that science was as big a part of popular culture as any celebrity is today and scientific language was more a part of the public lexicon. A world with less pseudoscience, is a world filled with less noise. 

Science is something we all like to think we know, but my personal experience has shown me that nothing could be further from the truth. 

Back in 1989, American astronomer and science communicator Carl Sagan spoke about the problem of having such a lack of science literacy amongst the general public in an article for the Skeptical Inquirer. He cites a then recent survey which suggested that, "94 percent of Americans are 'scientifically illiterate'" (Sagan 1989). An example of it appearing in our culture came with a story about an encounter he had with a driver picking him up from the airport named Mr. Buckley who recognized his name and excitedly wanted to ask the popular scientist a few questions. 

"Mr. “Buckley”—well-spoken, intelligent, curious—had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science got filtered out before it reached him. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretense and confusion. And it had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation" (Sagan 1989).

That is the perfect way to describe pseudoscience, cheap imitation. 

Image from SkepticalRaptor.com Pseudoscience and Science - Bullshit vs Rational Thought.

Sources:

1. Sagan, Carl. 1990. Why We Need To Understand Science. Skeptical Inquirer. (Vol. 14.3). Available online: (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_we_need_to_understand_science).

A Blog That Matters...

Never have I felt so humbled, insignificant, and at the same time connected to everything than I do with a scientific worldview. Hopefully, I will start even more connections as this process goes on. For the next few weeks, I am going to start the exercise of writing new posts on the regular. One every other day. This first post will be a short story about my background, why I decided to start this blog, and what I hope to get out of it.

There are countless blogs out there, and you pick almost any subject, there are hundreds of them dedicated to it. So, that begs the next question, what will make my blog site different from the plethora of science and skeptics blogs? 

Firstly, I wanted to do something that would make a difference. Something that would matter. Initially, I just wanted to put things in my head out there and found a larger community of like-minded individuals that inspired me to do better. I felt a gained responsibility to help others not be taken advantage of and grew into a consumer advocate. It felt like it was my civic duty. These are the things I feel to be most important and promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking are causes I believe to be worth following. This is my way of doing something to make the world to be a better place by helping others. These are things that changed my life and I know they will do the same for others. 

I had the unique experience of growing up going between a major metropolitan city to a lowly reservation. Throughout my childhood, I would visit my family on and around the reservation during my breaks from school. Eventually, I spent a great deal of time living there. After being in these somewhat compete opposite places, I still feel like I am not fully here or there, but still wondering somewhere in between. 

In a long round about way that brings me to why I decided to start this blog in the first place and what I hoped to get out of it. While everyone has their own unique experience and perspectives, there are not many Native American scientific skeptics. Even less Apache, Navajo, and Hopi skeptics. As am I. 

From the beginning, my intentions were to show my work of how I began the transition from a spiritual person seeking answers to the meaning of life and the universe and obsessed with knowing God, to the heathen obsessed with science and reason that I am today. In the midst of all that, I was also forced to confront all the tribal belief systems that were just as big a part of my personal identity as the Christian one. So, maybe this is my way of talking to my younger self and giving the advise I needed to shorten the journey and better filter out all the noise. A way to save people from wasting it on the unlikely; paranormal, supernatural, Qi fields, alternative medicine, and eastern medicine modalities. Instead of starting my investigations on what we don't know, I flipped the script and focused in on what we do know. 

Thus began my adventure traveling through hundreds of years of science history! But, I will save that story for another time. 

Have You Ever Heard about the Thing between Deodorant and Cancer?

I recently came across an article by Stephanie Marcus on the Huffington Post featuring Cameron Diaz where she reveals that she has not used antiperspirant for 20 years. It appears there is quite a prolific list of celebrities that subscribe to this more au naturale method of marination. Upon reading this, I recalled a conversation that I had years ago with a co-worker regarding his fears of the chemicals used in many of them as well. This prompted me to ask, where do these fears of antiperspirants and deodorants come from? More importantly, are any of them legitimate?

This all stems from a red carpet interview E! did at the premier to The Other Woman. Last April, E! Online published, Cameron Diaz Hasn't Used Antiperspirant...in 20 Years!, by  Marc Malkin. When the subject of antiperspirants came up, Diaz responded that she did not believe in them and went on to clarify that, "It's really bad for you. I haven't used it for almost 20 years." She then goes on to share many of her other personal views about how she thinks human biology and science work by soliciting some advise from her book, The Body Book. Last January, Kate Dries documented a personal experience reading the book in the article for Jezebel titled, Cameron Diaz's Body Book is Actually Pretty Good, and uses the following quote that Diaz does in her book,

"I'm not a scientist. I'm not a doctor. What I am is a woman who has spent the past fifteen years learning about what my body is capable of, and it has been the most rewarding experience of my life."

Just to be upfront, I am not a scientist or doctor either. However, the major deciding factor that is being overlooked here is scientific literacy. Not all claims are equal in merit and just because something sounds, or seems to be scientific, doesn't mean that it is science or that it's true. When lies and cons are informed by some truth and appeal to our emotions, it makes things cloudy so that being smart isn't good enough. Smart people can make mistakes just like the not-so-smart people can be correct from time to time. Without a good definition of what the process of science is, the less likely you are to have any sense of what it should look like and the likelihood of pseudoscience infiltrating your web browser grows. Smart people fall for not-so-smart things all the time. Sometimes we believe things too, for no good reason. It's not a stretch, or novel, to say people are irrational. But, what's not being said enough is that we need tools to help us with our psychological blindspots and personal biases. That's precisely what critical thinking and science literacy can provide.   

While she doesn't address anything specific or make any sort of definitive claim, she seems to be convinced that what she does know, is that they are "...really bad for you." This prompted me to look just a bit further for myself to see if there is any reason, or evidence, for such concern.

The University Health Network in Toronto, Canada took to the streets last February 4th to promote World Cancer Day and see what people thought about this very question and give them some facts in a special YouTube video they put together titled, Cancer Mythbusters: Antiperspirants and breast cancer.

Anti-perspirants have been identified as the leading cause of breast cancer.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp#fkLJhqIEXrqvlDLt.99

Anti-perspirants have been identified as the leading cause of breast cancer.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp#fkLJhqIEXrqvlDLt.99

Anti-perspirants have been identified as the leading cause of breast cancer.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp#fkLJhqIEXrqvlDLt.99

The specific claim that, anti-antiperspirants have been identified as the leading cause in breast cancer, has been looked at quite thoroughly by one the greatest skeptical tools available online, Snopes. If you are not familiar with this site as a resource, I'd recommend bookmarking it to memory for the next urban myth you come across. 
In 2003, the article titled Misleading Medical Myths Spread Quickly Over Internet was published by NewsOK warning the general public about some medical myths circulating like a chain e-mail at the time. One of the claims that made number two on the list also going out to physicians in an issue of MDnet Guide magazine notifying them about certain urban myths gaining popularity, is the one claiming that anti-perspirants/deodorant cause breast cancer. Apparently, the rumor got bad enough for the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health to respond with this fact sheet about anti-perspirants/deodorant and breast cancer. A key point in the document states, "There is no conclusive research linking the use of underarm antiperspirants or deodorants and the subsequent development of breast cancer." But, there is also another point that completed research studies were inconclusive because they produced conflicting results. Some may interpret that differently. One thing that's for sure is that you can't extrapolate that we know for sure what causes any specific type of cancer from these studies. So, where else might these fears perspire from?

In the 'Health, Wellness, and Hygiene Tips for Body Odor' section of the How Stuff Works website, there is a more than I, and probably you, would ever want to know about body odor in the article titled, How Body Odor Works. The subject of anti-antiperspirants and deodorants comes up five pages in; where it goes through a brief history of deodorant, some science behind it, and a few examples of alternatives. The aforementioned concerns and uncertainties surrounding the safety of aluminum-based deodorants shows up once again in the little informational box that appears on the side of the piece and states the following,      

"The safety of aluminum-based deodorants has been the cause for much debate. Some studies seem to have indicated that antiperspirants can increase breast cancer risks, but according to the National Cancer Institute and FDA, there's no conclusive evidence to tie the two together. Additionally, a study done in the 1960s indicated that there was a higher presence of aluminum in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, which has lead to the persistent belief that antiperspirants can contribute to the disease. However, according to the Alzheimer's Association, studies released since that time have failed to confirm aluminum's role in causing Alzheimer's."

A brief explanation of just what body odor is and some things to do about it, appears on the blog site Science Knowledge under the article titled, Deodorants and Antiperspirants. It also mentions that there are other alternatives which include masking scents and germicides. There is also a funny example going with this telling of how they test antiperspirants with control groups. The post eventually comes around to breaking down the active ingredients to what makes up an antiperspirant, and addresses some of these concerns in the following excerpt,

"Finally, it’s important to address one of the very real risks of antiperspirants. No, it’s not breast cancer or Alzheimer’s disease, despite what you might have read in imaginative email chain letters. For the record, aluminum, the key ingredient in antiperspirants, is the third most common element on our planet, and it’s found in food, air, and over-the-counter medications like antacids, all of which provide more aluminum than you can absorb from an antiperspirant through your skin. Furthermore, the amount of waste your sweat glands excrete is small, so there’s no reason to think that slowing down a few sweat glands can increase the level of toxins in your blood."

         

The real downsides to antiperspirants appear to be found in their limited application to be effective on certain glands, so they don't "suppress" the smell from "apocrine glands." Based on the evidence gathered, the only dangers that I can determine surrounding this whole subject, are embarrassment from excessive sweating and staining. The amount and the sweat itself can also indicate other health concerns that could be more serious, like diabetes or thyroid disease as well.

The How Stuff Works article had one other gem of advise that stood out to me amongst all the information sifted through,

"Because everyone's body chemistry is different, it may take a bit of experimentation to find a natural deodorant that works for you but the science of making the skin's surface unfriendly to bacteria is sound, and thousands of people use these products successfully every day."

Unfortunately, some people might argue that the research from big organizations like the American Cancer Society, the FDA, or the National Institutes for Health cannot be trusted because they are part of some elaborate umbrella government conspiracy allowing the poisoning of the general public. But, then I might argue that you might have bigger, more urgent problems of concern than the aluminum in your deodorant.

 
Sources:
Dries, Kate. 2014. "Cameron Diaz's Body Book is Actually Pretty Good". Jezebel.com. (Janurary 10) Can be accessed online at: http://jezebel.com/cameron-diazs-body-book-is-actually-pretty-good-1496442600.

Franco, Michael. 2010. "How Body Odor Works" HowStuffWorks.com. (May 4). Accessible online at: http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/hygiene-tips/body-odor4.htm. Last updated May 9, 2014.
Malkin, Marc. 2014. "Cameron Diaz Hasn't Used Antiperspirant...in 20 Years!". E! Online.com. Can be accessed online at: http://www.eonline.com/news/534660/cameron-diaz-hasn-t-used-antiperspirant-in-20-years.

Marcus, Stephanie. 2014. "Cameron Diaz Say She Hasn't Worn Deodorant in 20 Years". Huffington Post. April 24. Can be accessed online at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/cameron-diaz-deodorant-antiperspirant_n_5205103.html.

Mayo Clinic Staff. 2014. "Sweating and Body Odor: Causes". Mayo Clinic. (Janurary 25). Can be accessed online at: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/sweating-and-body-odor/basics/causes/con-20014438.

NewsOK. 2003. "Misleading Medical Myths Spread Quickly Over Internet". NewsOK.com. (January 7). Can be accessed online at: http://newsok.com/misleading-medical-myths-spread-quickly-over-internet/article/1909166.

National Cancer Institute. 2008. "Antiperspirants/Deodorants and Breast Cancer". Cancer.gov. Can be accessed online at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/AP-Deo.
Snopes. 1999. "Anti-Perspirants and Breast Cancer". Snopes.com. Can be accessed online at: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/antiperspirant.asp. Last updated, January 2, 2014.

Science Knowledge. 2010. Deodorants and Antiperspirants. Sciencemags.blogspot.com. Can be accessed online at: http://sciencemags.blogspot.com/2010/01/deodorants-and-antiperspirants.html.

University Health Network. 2013. "Cancer Mythbusters: Antiperspirants and breast cancer". YouTube. UHNToronto. (January 13). Can be accessed online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcg6lELqP58.

A Case of 'Particle Fever'

One day, I was sitting in a production lab performing a video test as part of the quality control process for a monitor and came across the image of a giant structure being hauled by truck so big it closed down both directions of the highway. I needed to see what a 50 foot magnet was being used for, and was I surprised to see it was just a small piece of the bigger machine. Instead of quenching that thirst, my curiosity would only continue to grow just as much as my understanding did, the more I explored the fundamental aspects which govern the laws that lead humans to build such an impossibly complex machine. It really is a marvel of human ingenuity. A pinnacle of engineering and physics. It's only fitting that hundreds of hours and years of footage were used to make the upcoming movie focusing on a scientific journey that involves all of us. Particle Fever is being featured by Angela Watercutter in her recent article for Wired as, "A Movie About the Large Hadron Collider That You'll Actually Understand."    

Part of my own personal voyage was described in an interview with Ben Radford for the Center for Inquiry where I gave this example of how the Large Hadron Collider lead me to become involved with organized skepticism. Here is my response to that question,

"Philosophy, Socrates, and the socratic method, planted a seed with a question, "What is knowledge?" If you can't define that for yourself, then how can you maintain the claim that you truly "know" anything? I wanted to know how we as the collective human race compiled all of the scientific understandings of such things like Einstein's theory of relativity or how we know certain things about the nature of subatomic particles. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN really ignited my interest in getting to the bottom of how man could even postulate such a machine. The process of how science works became clear only after I became more familiar with the history of science, and finally I had the standard for knowledge that I was looking for: scientific knowledge.

After becoming engulfed in this newfound obsession for everything science related, it was only a matter of time before I came across the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Simply listening to the SGU let me know that there was this community out there and that really helped sharpen my critical thinking skills while establishing a deep-seeded root to be more actively involved in skepticism. I wanted to help others follow along those lines and discover how enlightening and empowering science can be through its relevance to everything."

Like with most skeptic's origin stories, mine also began with a love for science. Once I became better acquainted with the scientific method I also became aware of my own scientific illiteracy. At that point, I already had a applied science degree and a bachelors in technical management. So, it was a bit of a shock for me and blow to the ego to admit that I did not really know what science was or how to clearly define it. I wondered how I went clear through the entire educational process and missed out on such a vital part to understanding the modern world. But, what I did attain through my educational experience through philosophy, ethics and other writing courses, was the ability to think with different perspectives. Which has also helped me as an artist. 

I am excited for this movie and the opportunity to make these concepts exciting for others as well. The LHC inspired me so much by the sheer ingenuity of the whole machine, forget the way it works. The look of it alone is straight out of a science fiction movie and could easily pass for a Star Trek set! But, in order to truly appreciate the inner workings of the biggest scientific experiment in the world and most complex machine ever built by human beings, there's a bit of physics to examine and explore. And about a couple hundred years worth of science.   

That has kept me busy ever since and I am just as curious about things, but as a result, my appreciation of those things is so much deeper.

Particle Fever will be smashing it's way to select theaters March through April.
 

My Brian Dunning From Skeptoid on The Joe Rogan Experience

The episode #441 of The Joe Rogan Experience ended up being rather memorable for some quite unexpected reasons. At first, I was excited by the premise of Brian Dunning, the host of Skeptoid, being featured as a guest on one of the other podcasts I actually listen to regularly and personally feel could be used as a resource to spread the awareness of skepticism and science. For the most part, I have found that the people that I bring this idea to do not have a good reaction to the notion or do not know what a podcast is. In a grander scheme of things in terms of the greater good and what the skepticism movement is supposed to be about, or at least what it means to me, we really should utilize these avenues of popular culture trending right now like YouTube and podcasts. I would love to hear a prominent name being featured as a guest on the Nerdist podcast or have an episode recorded from The Amazing Meeting.
   

The first major thing that became fixated to my mind and lingered around throughout the entire episode was making it a point to clarify and define what it means to be “scientifically literate”, and the importance it serves us as everyday citizens. It's part our civic duty to learn these things. One definition that I pull off from the top of my head comes from one of the best science communicators doing his thing today, and that’s no other than Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here is a clip of the YouTube video I am talking about:

There are general misconceptions about science and skepticism around anywhere people can be found. For some, sounding technical is enough for it to be considered science-y. For some others, being a nay-saying cynic gets misconstrued for being "skeptical." Another giant aspect to the definition of science, that doesn't get discussed enough, is pointing out that the word skeptic as in scientific skepticism also means open-minded. It’s not so centered on a constant state of disbelief as in the way Joe Rogan represents it to be in this discussion with Brian Dunning. The word skeptic (as I define it at least) is interchangeable with science, or the scientific perspective, which is always open to new evidence and constantly changing. My personal views on things are always changing as I receive more information through experience and as knowledge is gained. This is where something from another YouTube video this time featuring physicist Richard Feynman comes to mind:

Another glaring point that I didn’t really feel like got covered that is important to the putting together an accurate portrait of science is how we determine standards of evidence or validity. Making a claim is easy for anyone to do; the real interesting part is in backing it up, but that also takes the most effort. It’s easier to just go along with people than to argue against them too. If you disagree with someone, you may feel the burden to justify your position and that’s just too much work! So, I can see how sitting in silence can seem so much more appealing to your brain in certain circumstances. But, feeling that way doesn’t always mean that it’s the right thing to do either. Another fallacious argument that was repeatedly used resembled the following form: the government conspired in the past therefore the current instance in question is a conspiracy too. That is a bit like saying a specific event is a conspiracy because conspiracies exist. Not only is that bad logic, it's just plain ole lazy thinking.

Vitamins are an important subject to skeptics and consumer protection activists because it deals with something that concerns everyone, health. We all have our own definitions of what it means to be “healthy”. Not many people receive much education in nutrition, but that doesn’t stop anybody from formulating an opinion and thinking they know what’s best for them- health wise. In this instance, a recent relay of research covered by the media spouting that vitamins are a waste of money got Joe up in arms and arguing that vitamins are beneficial. However, the media headline was misleading and the research did not show vitamins to have "completely no benefits", but what it did indicate is that additional dietary supplementation is not necessary for most people eating a regular varied diet. And what they did say is that, "using supplements and multivitamins to prevent chronic conditions is a waste of money." In other words, vitamins don’t work in the specific manner that the nutrition industry is currently selling them to us. But, I understand how these personal views can become emotionally charged and this particular area is prone to Joe and I would expect a strong knee jerk reaction or some resistance at the least. It was hard for me to let go of some of the nutritional claims that I had bought into early on from getting immersed in bodybuilding. High school can drive some boys to do crazy things just to get a competitive edge or that feeds into an urge to get bigger and much of it is based on anecdote and placebo. Joe oversimplified the multi-vitamin research study being discussed and the misinterpretation seemed to me most likely due to the misleading media headlines. The vitamin c claims being made were vague. There is some validity to vitamin c shortening the lifespan of colds, but not so much preventing them. Ultra high doses of anything are generally not a good idea. Some claims do not hold up while others can have risks that are more harmful than they are beneficial.

The others things that bothered me were not the topics themselves, but the manner in which they were presented.

For instance, I found the debate over what Dr. Mark Gordon said in a prior episode # 438 about a chemical called glutathione and effects on the liver it had when drinking alcohol that caused Brian to shut off the episode and describes an experience closely resembling the uncomfortable feeling of distress that I had while listening to this part of his conversation with Joe. After they replayed and listened to the prior segment in question during the show, Joe clarified what the doctor had said and Brian stood by his original statement. I remember when the initially started the conversation that it prompted me to start thinking about the interview because I had just listened to that episode and found the doctors’ statement to be suggestive, but it wasn’t clear to me it was being recommended. After they brought the subject up, I remembered listening to this episode the day it became available for download and my memory of that show didn’t include the sort of menacing portrayal as described by Dunning’s experience. But, I also recall not being too convinced by the evidence Dr. Gordon did provide either, such as the one little anecdote that gets brought up. What did seem to stand out about this part of the conversation is that Brian appeared eager and bent on being confrontational based on something I believe he misheard. Perhaps, being hyper focused on activism can lead to fighting fights that are not effectively helpful in the spreading of the original intended message.

At the end of the day, skeptics are susceptible to their own psychology too. It’s just that as skeptics, we are often aware of these pitfalls in thinking and intently seek out contradictory evidence. However, as we are all flawed and biased we are all guilty on occasion of hearing what we want to hear, or perhaps in some cases, we don’t hear what we weren’t listening for, and being aware of our bias doesn’t make us immune to it.

I did happen to agree with Joe when he echoed a common mantra that gets thrown around often when discussing the topic of skeptical outreach and scientific debates; “sometimes being a dick can take all the attention away from the point you are trying to make.” It’s like you can literally hear a giant slurping sound during the middle of a conversation from everyone’s attention leaving the room all at once like a vacuum. Joe often justifies his positions by pointing out how smart people are or how educated they are, as he does a couple times in this episode, but we have many examples of smart people being demonstrably wrong. Take someone as seemingly intelligent as Dr. Oz promoting homeopathy and other questionable forms of alternative medicine and pseudoscience for instance. However, I would like to give credit and point out that I have recognized a change over the years listening to the show.

Guests like Sam Harris or Neil deGrasse Tyson seem to corral the conversation into staying within reason by breaking down ideas before tangents go too far down the rabbit hole. Even the silly conversations are so much more interesting when one or more people in a party are scientifically literate, then you can really nerd out properly. Like what often happens on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. I really enjoy these conversations the most and feel that I get more out of these types of episodes too. Joe also appears to be much more pliable in these scenarios than the common misconception that many people hold of him in the skeptical community. Much of this is due to the history surrounding Joe and his former beliefs that the Moon landings were a hoax, amongst a few other conspiracy theories thrown in there too. When Joe had a debate with astronomer Phil Plait on Penn Jillette’s show, it got the attention of the scientific and skeptical communities. So, I can see the need of some damage control on both sides. Joe has since relinquished many of these beliefs but has been written off long ago and said to be too far gone in his irrationality. After someone brought the whole Moon debacle to my attention, I initially felt that way too. It would be one thing if it was strictly an all hardcore comedy show, but the fact is that most of the time it treads into scientific topics of discussion lends itself to criticism. In the past I have proposed to other notable skeptics that there is some potential for outreach on Joe Rogan’s podcast, but for many there is still a bad taste left after the whole Moon incident. There are so many times in conversations that I wished Dr. Steve Novella from the SGU was there to discuss experiences of the brain that people have or when there is a weird news story in the media that Sharon Hill from Doubtful News could help put into perspective by providing further insight with a little back story.

I noticed things that have changed for the better especially with recent Joe Rogan Experience episode featuring from something you might have already sensed, psychics. It was pleasantly surprising and I feel is definitely the most skeptical thing he has done. At one point he slips and calls himself a skeptic, only to quickly retort. It features an engagement with another prominent skeptic and world class mentalist, Banachek. This podcast episode JRQE5 with Duncan Trussell was recorded during the production of Joe Rogan Questions Everything which originally aired on SyFy and it discusses how that meeting not only changed their perception of all psychics, but reality as well.

I was really hoping for this episode to be an opportunity to share the ideas of what skepticism, science, and critical thinking has to offer everyone and the importance they are to the way we acquire knowledge about the modern world we live in today. So, I guess what bothered me the most and got me down was the lost opportunity to point out what distinguishes something as being scientific and the notion that it's the same perspective that lies in the heart of skepticism wasn’t stressed at all. “Skepticism and science are not so much about what you think; it’s about how you think.” And it is possible to have an intellectual debate that is still lighthearted that others can learn and grown from. I would just like to hear or see them in more places other then skeptics podcasts. 

Could Discoveries in Superconductivity Finally Give Us Hoverboards?

From the act of virtually seeing inside the human body with medical imaging technology to helping physicists in their quest to discover the origins of mass in matter, superconductors are already incredibly useful. 

One of the most important applications of superconductors is making powerful electromagnets. In electronics, it is a basic principle that as electrical charges travel through conducting material, like current flowing through winding strands of copper wire, it generates heat and loses energy. Since the electric and magnetic fields are tied together, when charge passes through the wire it conducts electricity, it also creates a magnetic field. But, superconducting wire can carry an immense amount of electrical current without the effects of heating or energy loss. In this state of superconductivity, magnetic fields gets expelled from the equation by sending the electric current towards the outer surface, thereby, squeezing out any magnetic flux. This not yet fully understood phenomena is also known as, the Meisser effect. But what we do know, is that when the magnetic fields of the superconductor get cancelled out, the electrical currents do not change, or decay, with time. The electrical current can travel without a power source to drive it - infinitely! So, it's not just a clever name, it really is a super-conductor.    

One hundred years ago, Dutch physicist, Heike Kamerlingh Onnes and his team found that certain materials completely lose their electrical resistance when cooled to a temperature that is within what is called "absolute zero". The following quote is from the 'History of Superconductors' section on Superconductors.org, a non-profit, non-affiliated website intended to introduce beginners and non-technical people to the world of superconductors. 

"Superconductors, materials that have no resistance to the flow of electricity, are one of the last great frontiers of scientific discovery. Not only have the limits of superconductivity not yet been reached, but the theories that explain superconductor behavior seem to be constantly under review. In 1911 superconductivity was first observed in mercury by Dutch physicist Heike Kamerlingh Onnes of Leiden University. When he cooled it to the temperature of liquid helium, 4 degrees Kelvin (-452F, -269C), its resistance suddenly disappeared. The Kelvin scale represents an "absolute" scale of temperature. Thus, it was necessary for Onnes to come within 4 degrees of the coldest temperature that is theoretically attainable to witness the phenomenon of superconductivity. Later, in 1913, he won a Nobel Prize in physics for his research in this area." (Eck 2011)

Within fifty years of the discovery made by Heike Onnes and his team, superconductivity was though to have been fully explained by a simple beautiful elegant theory, when in 1986, an ugly disproving fact overturned it all.

It seems that superconducting materials are still surprising us. Three years ago, in the Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, an international forum for refereed original contributions and reviews covering all aspects of materials science, Tadashi C Ozawa and Susan M Kauzlarich published a journal titled, "Chemistry of layered d-metal pnictide oxides and their potential as candidates for new superconductors", covering their new findings of an (iron-based) superconducting material. In 2008, Charles Q. Choi wrote about this story in the April 23rd issue of Scientific American, "Iron Exposed as High-Temperature Superconductor: New class of superconductor may help pin down mysterious physics",

"For more than 20 years, the only known superconductors that worked far above liquid-helium temperatures were a few dozen compounds—virtually all based on copper. Now scientists have discovered the first high-temperature superconductors based on iron. These novel materials could help unravel one of the biggest mysteries in science—how exactly the high-temperature versions work"(Choi 2008)

These iron-based superconductors that were discovered three years ago were utterly unexpected, and this highlights just how much we still have to learn. The following video is from the article, "Superconducting disc locked in upside-down levitation", posted on the "New ScientistTV Blogs section", under 'Physics and Math' in October 2011. It may seem to be some kind of reversed alien technology, but I assure you, it is perfectly explainable simply using the most natural laws of physics. The key ingredient in effect here lies within the material of the disc. It's make-up consists of poor electrical conducting sapphire crystals, while being coated with an outer layer of superconducting material known as yttrium barium copper oxide. As you can see from the video, the disc can be locked into position because of the love-hate relationship between superconducting fields and magnetic fields. There are tiny, tiny gaps in the disc which allow for some of the magnetic field to seep in, trapping them inside weak area's. Those tiny spaces can hold up the disc by acting as invisible "pins".   

-Demonstration by physicist Boaz Almog from Tel Aviv University, Israel, at the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC) Annual Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, illustrates how a superconducting plate can be fixed in 3D space while levitating above a track of permanent magnets.

This video below is from the article titled, "Superconductor flying saucer stunts", and it also appears on "New ScientistTV" in addition to those previously shown experiments from Boaz Almog and his team at Tel Aviv University.

-Filmed by physicist Boaz Almog and his colleagues at Tel Aviv University's superconductivity group, the clip builds upon Almog's 'hit demonstration' from the Association of Science-Technology Centers

As you can see from the clouds of gas in these two video's, the superconducting materials are cooled with liquid nitrogen. One of the main goals to help further the applications of this research is to find a material that can be superconducting at room temperature. As important as those achievements which have been made up to this point are, their potential for a future revolution in technology may be even greater. Then just maybe, we can all get our "Hoverboards".

http://www.davekeeshan.com/where-is-my-hoverboard/

Superheroes, Ghosts, and the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Believe it or not...but most of us already know more about the Electromagnetic Spectrum than we are even aware of from pop-culture and comic book superheroes. Superman has x-ray vision allowing him to see through objects, while an experiment gone awry exposed Bruce Banner to gamma rays turning him into the Hulk. These are both examples of some very real "energies". However, it is that fascination for science-fiction that can often lead some to stray into an obsession with the just plain fiction.

Reason Rises in the Valley of the Sun with Newly Established Phoenix Area Skeptics Society

The majority of the content in this particular post was inspired in light of the 2007 article by Canadian writer, illustrator, and Editor of Junior Skeptic magazine Daniel Loxton titled, "Where Do We Go From Here" [PDF]. This also helped serve for some background on the purpose of the newly established Phoenix Area Skeptics Society (PASS). It clearly lays out the future of skepticism and some of the reasons why, "skepticism is a movement with a mission: to organize an effort to discover reality, to expose fraud — and to help people."  

“Our underlying interest is not the paranormal per se, but the larger topics and issues such as how our beliefs in such things arise, how our minds work to deceive us, how we think, how our critical thinking capabilities can be improved.” (Loxton 2007)

In the end,

• We can decrease the total number of scams and help clear up confusions. 
• We can reduce the total amount of harm suffered by victims and potential victims. 
• We can make things less profitable or more difficult for specific kinds of scam artists." (Loxton 2007)

How Science Changed My Life

Belief is a strong feeling in something that often cannot be explained. However, being the inquisitive minded person that I am, often that is not good enough for me. Faith is a word that I rarely use, but that was not always the case. As a young person, I was taught certain things that were “gospel”, so-to-speak. I did not question those particular things, nor was I in any position to do so. But, as I grew into a more confident and well equipped individual through school, I made it a point not to sway in that initial inquisitive nature. Being an artist gave me the reason to embrace and harness this quality in myself. I knew this was a unique trait that not everyone shared and even if it made me an outcast to whatever social click, somehow I knew this was a special ability that would lead to great things and possibly even greater understandings.

"The Healthy Skeptic" Gets A Healthy Dose of Skepticism

A couple of weeks ago, I came across this site by a self proclaimed "skeptic" promoting health and nutrition called, 'The Healthy Skeptic'. At first, I was enthralled to find another skeptical podcast that could be a potential source which I could listen to about nutritional information from a scientifically inclined perspective. As I began listening to a podcast episode, it did not take me very long to notice a few instances of my skeptical "spidey sense" going off. Upon closer examination, I saw that the main website had some interesting claims about acupuncture under the special "myth busting" section. Chris Kresser is a licensed acupuncturist who calls himself the "Healthy Skeptic", so I was more than intrigued to learn more about his premise that "everything we’ve been taught about Chinese medicine in the West isn’t accurate and is a functional, flesh and bones medicine based on the same basic physiology as western medicine." (Kresser 2010) Of course I wanted to see the evidence, after all, he does have the word "skeptic" in his title and it was provided for me in a series of six separate sections titled "Chinese Medicine Demystified". The following is a great example of some common logical fallacies, that ANY intelligent person can make, and includes my critique of what I encountered upon reviewing each section.

If We Champion Science, Must We Oppose Faith?

"Recently at the 30th anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism in Los Angeles, leading science blogger PZ Myers and Point of Inquiry host Chris Mooney appeared together on a panel to discuss the questions, How should secular humanists respond to science and religion? If we champion science, must we oppose faith? How best to approach flashpoints like evolution education?"

The next day, the three reprised their public debate for a special episode of Point of Inquiry. <--This is the unedited cut of that three way conversation.

Chris Mooney is a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America.

PZ Myers is a biologist at the University of Minnesota-Morris who, in addition to his duties as a teacher of biology and especially of development and evolution. Also, the author of Pharyngula, the most heavily-trafficked science blog online.

Jennifer Michael Hecht is the author of award-winning books of philosophy, history, and poetry, including: Doubt: A History (HarperCollins, 2003); The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism and Anthropology (Columbia University Press, 2003); and The Happiness Myth, (HarperCollins in 2007). Her work appears in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and The New Yorker. Hecht earned her Ph.D. in History from Columbia University in 1995 and now teaches in the graduate writing program of The New School University.

This is my response to that discussion

How Intelligent Individuals Aquire Irrational Beliefs

Our society has taken a dangerous turn, an anti-science one. Information bombards us daily through various forms of media, such as television, internet websites, and through our daily conversations. Differentiating the useful information from the bad is a skill that is often neglected. By bringing attention to these types of logically fallacious pitfalls that misinterpret misinformation as truth, we can more effectively and efficiently encounter and address them.

An Introduction Into Science and Skeptical Thinking

For quite some time now, we have known that Americans do not have very much general knowledge about science. Numerous surveys that measure the public's broad views on evolution, climate change, the Big Bang, and even the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun, all reveal how huge the gap really is between what science tells us and what the public believes. But what does that really mean? How is that even relative to you? And why should you even care?