Two-headed cerberus, part 6: Three-way shootout

Creationists are fond of an argument that, once you send it through the Architectonic Decoder Ring, translates into this:

If there are two people in the world who disagree with me, but also disagree with each other on any issue, then I'm right.

We'll call it the argumentum ad bonus, malus, et turpis. (i.e. the Fallacy of Argument from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, because it posits that the mere existence of a three-way shootout automatically proves the creationist right.)

For example, paleontologists disagree on whether birds are descended from dinosaurs or from some other, non-dinosaurian reptile. Creationists point to that disagreement as proof that evolution is false. The most prominent grist for argumentum ad b. m. & t. is, of course, the disagreement between phyletic gradualists and the proponents of punctuated equilibrium.

Needless to say, "Skeptics" are so well-versed in creationist silliness that they know to steer well clear of this fallacy, right? No. George case wrote this article on "conspiracy theories" in which he included the following gem:

"The blunt truth is that conspiracy theories very seldom make a solid case. Either they play on pre-existing prejudices (how corrupt you already take the government / the media / big business to be), or contradict each other (if the Iraq war is all about Halliburton contracts, then it can’t be about Judeo-Christian millennial fanatics within the Bush administration; if the Mafia killed JFK, then the Freemasons are off the hook)..."

Yes, not only does George Case point to the mere existence of multiple JFK conspiracy theories as proof that they are all wrong, he also states that logically, it is impossible to kill two birds with one stone. Thus we can't have Bush (a known Judeo-Christian millennial fanatic who has, in fact, stated that God told him to attack Iraq) steering corrupt contracts to Halliburton (who is known to have received corrupt contracts.)

What is a "conspiracy theory", anyway? Run it through the Decoder Ring and we get:

"Any conspiracy that a 'Skeptic' doesn't believe in."

Take Watergate, for example. Case believes in that, so it's not a crazy conspiracy theory. On the other hand, he's a conservative, so if you pay attention to the news and remember the time Bush said God told him to invade Iraq, you're crazy.

Given Case's supersonic flight from all logic and facts, can we expect him to be criticised by the Skeptics for using the same arguments that creationists use? No, he's actually a recurring writer for Skeptic magazine, in which his conspiracy piece first appeared. And the Skeptic's Dictionary website makes favorable mention of him as well.

Remind me again, what is Skepticism supposed to be about, precisely? Isn't it supposed to have something to do with critical thinking?

Two-headed cerberus, part 5: pathologizing dissent

I remember I once thought Jim Jones must have been really brilliant to figure out how to brainwash all those people into following him. Then, when I read a book on Jonestown, I was surprised to find that Jim Jones' brainwashing techniques were essentially the same ones that the evangelical Christians used on me back when I attended an evangelical high school. The full story will have to wait for a later blog entry, but for now let me point to one of the key brainwashing techniques used in both cases: pathologizing dissent.

If you want to make sure that people don't leave your group and don't question the dogma, it's very important to make sure that they never believe that reasonable people could disagree on the dogma. Everyone who disagrees- everyone who is not a member of the group- is not merely incorrect, but is laughable, wicked, and sick.

For example, we were always told that atheists were silly, neurotic people who denied Christ because they wanted to have license to sin, and were trying (and failing) to fool themselves into believing that God wouldn't punish them for it. My history teacher once warned me that any book on Egyptian history which didn't explicitly mention the parting of the Red Sea was actually covert anti-Christian propanda written by atheists who were hell-bent on the destruction of Christianity. There's also a set of Sunday-school stereotypes of "why people reject Christianity," loosely based on the parable of the sower. If you read Left Behind, the protagonists have little personality beyond these stereotypes: there's the guy who thinks Christianity sounds too dumb for a cool guy like him, the guy who goes to church but isn't really committed, etc. Nowhere do they admit the possibility that reasonable people simply might disagree on whether Christianity is true. This is a nice way to make sure people don't leave the cult: tear down everything outside the cult so that your followers don't think there's anywhere else to go.

Where do Skeptics fit into all this? Here's Richard Dawkins:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."

Like I said: the evangelicals teach that everyone who dissents is laughable, wicked, and sick. The Skeptics have actually made a cottage industry of pathologizing dissent. They don't write books with titles like, Why We All Make Mistakes. They write books like, Why People Believe Weird Things, and they have pat answers to explain away the fact that people disagree with them just like the Christians do. It's always the other guy who has a problem, and the problem is so spectacular that instead of merely rebutting it, the Skeptics need to analyze the underlying pathology that motivates people to disagree with the Skeptics. Remember the Skeptic I quoted before:

"Logical people are skeptics. True believers don't look at facts and inference, but authority figures to decide what to believe."

Skeptics use logic. Always. Non-Skeptics are "true believers" who don't look at facts and inference. Ever. They let authority figures decide what they believe. Always.

Why not phrase it like this?

"People get scammed because even the best of us can get fooled- nobody's perfect. Unfortunately, it's easier to get fooled if you don't know about critical thinking, and schools just don't teach that kind of thing."

How often do we see Skeptics admit that they themselves can think illogically at times, or admit that non-Skeptics often do quite well at thinking logically with regard to some, but not all, of their beliefs? They can't admit that, any more than the fundagelicals can admit that reasonable people can disagree about Jesus. If they ever admitted it, the wall between "us" and "them" would crumble, and they would have to see themselves as midpoints on a continuum.

The pathologization of dissent gives the fundagelicals and the Skeptics an easy way to dismiss people who disagree with them. If dissent can only be motivated by pathology, then the very fact of dissent proves that there is no point in listening to the dissenter. I've had Christians tell me "I'm not going to listen to your story of why you left Christianity- the Bible already tells me why you left, and if you have a different story, that just proves you're in denial." I've also heard them say, "Oh, you're for gay rights- you're one of those people who wants to have gay sex, so you attack Christianity because we're the world's one bastion of morality." Similarly, Skeptics believe- and oftentimes explicitly state- that anyone who attacks Skepticism is someone who believes in a Weird Thing, and since Weird Things are never true, the only way they can defend their belief is to attack the world's one bastion of rationality, Skepticism. Thus when I criticise Skepticism as a subculture, they roll their eyes and declare that I must believe in some kind of "alternative thinking," or they bring up 9/11 out of the blue. They beg me to read The Demon Haunted World and to embrace critical thinking, just as the fundagelicals beg me to read the Bible and embrace Jesus, even though the only evidence that I haven't already done so is the fact that I dare to criticise them.

Two-headed cerberus, part 4: No room for improvement

Inherent in the us vs. them thinking of "Skeptics" and Christians is the idea that they have already arrived at their goal. "Christians" label themselves as the official Believers in Christ. Everybody else needs to get in touch with what Jesus expects of them, but Christians are already there.

Now, take this quote from a Skeptic:

"Sure. For any scammer, the vast majority in the audience has little ability to use logic. Logical people are skeptics. True believers don't look at facts and inference, but authority figures to decide what to believe. As long as the authority figure has an answer, any answer at all, to an objection, the true believer can not be budged."

"Skeptics" refer to themselves as "skeptics." Not as "people who advocate skepticism," or "people who try to be skeptical," but "Skeptics," people who already have an inherent tendency to exercise Goodthink in every aspect of their lives, completely different from the True Believers who haven't accepted the truth of Skepticism.

Two-headed cerberus, part 3: Movement vs. ideal

"Skeptics" and fundagelicals both have an inability to separate their movement from their ideal. Thus, any criticism of fundagelicalism is taken to be a criticism of Jesus himself, rather than a criticism of the movements which claim to follow him. Similarly, "Skeptics" will, without fail, interpret criticisms of the Skeptical subculture as being a criticism of the very idea of rational thought. Take what one self-proclaimed "Skeptic" told me:

"...yes, I know you think that means I'm turning a blind eye to "alternative thinking" or whatever. So be it. I read comic books and an occaisional science fiction novel; that's all the escapism I'm interested in with my literature."

What prompted this attack? Nothing more than the fact that he made a claim, and I asked him for a cite to back it up. Skeptics are, if anything, more thin-skinned than the fundagelicals, in my experience, and this example is hardly unique. Once I asked a Skeptic for a cite, and she told me that the very idea that anyone would ask her for a cite made her too angry to type in a reply.

Naturally, this kind of mindset leads to us vs. them thinking. If someone criticises the movement, they're criticising the ideal, and therefore they must be Stupid and/or Evil. If you dare to ask a Skeptic for a cite, you must embrace some form of "alternative thinking" worthy of nothing but mockery. I've had fundagelicals tell me outright that one day, my lifestyle of sex and drugs will pall, and I will realize that true happiness can only be found in Jesus. Bear in mind that I'm neither a drug user nor a libertine, nor did the conversation up to that point have anything do to with sex or drugs. But if you criticise fundagelicalism, they assume you must fit their stereotype of a wild heathen. So, too, with the Skeptics. I once pointed out that people frequently seem to have an irrational tendency to dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, without even looking at the evidence. I was told:

"If you want to suggest that there's something wrong with me because I don't believe the twin towers were really destroyed by Donald Duck or a cabal of basket-weavers, then I'm happy to disappoint you."

Of course, I had mentioned nothing about 9/11. But "Skeptics" imagine that everyone who disagrees with "Skepticism" is part of a morass of "True Believers" who believe in weird conspiracy theories, particularly involving 9/11.

The confusion of movement and ideal is exacerbated by the willingness of both Skeptics and fundagelicals to appropriate generic terms for their movements. Christians in general appropriate the term "God" to refer to their tribal deity, Jehovah. One frequently sees them claiming that the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God proves the existence of Jehovah, even though it clearly does no such thing: the Ontological Argument says nothing whatsoever about the crucifixion, for example. Sometimes you even see the more ignorant fundagelicals saying that Christianity is superior to Islam because Christians believe in God, while Muslims only believe in Allah. More frequently, you see them making claims like, "I'm not religious, I'm just Christian," or "Religions are man-made lies, like Islam or Buddhism. Christianity isn't a religion, it's just reality."

Similarly, "Skeptics" have appropriated the term "skepticism" for their little subculture of people who are interested in Bigfoot but don't believe in him, and then they pretend that all people with an interest in critical thinking are as interested in Bigfoot as they are. Extra!, for example, is clearly a publication that is devoted to critical thinking, but I've never seen it hailed in the pages of Skeptical Inquirer. It's difficult for me even to discuss the Skeptical subculture as something separate from genuine skepticism, because there isn't even a separate word for it. That's why I capitalize "Skeptic" and put it in quotes. Naturally, that always arouses the intense ire of "Skeptics" because they don't like to be reminded of the fact that joining a Skeptical Society doesn't necessarily make you a real skeptic. In other words, they object to my phrasing, but their real objection is to what I'm trying to say.

Two-headed cerberus, part 2: I.P.U.

Frequently when Christians argue for their beliefs online (typically fundagelicals, simply because those are the only ones who bother to argue for their beliefs) you find the Skeptics shooting back with the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The Christians, naturally, will complain that the I.P.U. is clearly meant to mock Christianity by dragging it down to the level of silly fairytales. Wikipedia is reasonably honest about this, but at many places- particularly the SDMB- the Skeptics will insist that no, the I.P.U. is merely meant to humorously illustrate the concept of Popperian falsifiability. If an idea is immune to all possibility of disproof, then it's not worth taking seriously, because there's no way to know whether it's true or not. For example, I once saw Michael Behe presented with the claim that such-and-such gene clearly shows evolution being driven by random mutations, thus disproving Intelligent Design. Behe replied that the mutations were actually directed by God, but that God had disguised them to make them appear completely random. To this, a good Skeptic will shoot back, "I'll believe in Intelligent Design, but only if you can prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist." Sure, all evidence shows that the I.P.U. doesn't exist- but that's just because the I.P.U. works so hard to remove all traces of her existence.

So, do Skeptics really value Popperian falsifiability? Not really. It's just a convenient stick with which to beat the fundagelicals, but they don't really believe in it. Just raise the question of conspiracy theories, and sure enough, some Skeptic will say, "Don't be silly, every conpsiracy is revealed sooner or later." This very obviously violates Popperian falsifiability. How can you possibly disprove it? The only possible counterexamples are things no one will ever hear about. The very act of learning about a counterexample destroys its validity as evidence! I've tried to point out that many conspiracies have, in fact, managed to stay hidden for a very long time: MKULTRA stayed undiscovered for 25 years, was only discovered more or less by freak accident, and 90% of the activities involved in the program will never be uncovered, because the files were shredded. Needless to say, the Skeptics point to that as proof that every conspiracy will always be revealed in all its details sooner or later.

Even worse, the Skeptical rebuttal doesn't even make sense. Obviously if I'm presenting a conspiracy theory, I'm claiming that that theory has been uncovered. It's like saying "I had a hamburger for lunch today," and being told, "Don't be ridiculous- all hamburgers get eaten sooner or later." But don't wait around hoping that the Skeptics will mock one of their own kind with the I.P.U. They don't really care about Popperian falsifiability, any more than the creationists do. They're like the little mechanical figures on a clock, programmed to march out and strike the bell with a hammer every hour. Except in this case, they're programmed to smack creationists with the I.P.U. every so often. Smacking conspiracy deniers with the I.P.U. simply isn't part of their programming, so you'll never see them do it.

The two-headed cerberus, part 1: Joining the club

Today we begin our look at the two-headed Cerberus: ORGANIZED RELIGION and ORGANIZED SKEPTICISM.

Have you ever noticed that all the people who call themselves "Kantians" actually know, understand, and believe in the things Kant believed? That's because the only way to actually be a Kantian is to hold beliefs that have some similarity to what Kant taught. On the other hand, suppose we made a Kant Club, all of whose members were called "Kantians." Then it would be possible for someone to be a "Kantian" without actually believing in Kant. All they have to do is to send off for a membership card! And suppose the Kant Club promulgated the idea that everyone outside the club was a moron. Then there would be a real incentive for people to join the club and call themselves "Kantians." But ostensibly you have to believe in Kant before you can join the club, right? Don't be a doofus. Joining the club only requires that you say you believe in Kant. If people can do that, nobody is going to bother actually reading Kant.

Now, suppose that Christian churches simply didn't exist. Then the only people who would call themselves "Christians" would be people who actually believe in the stuff Jesus taught. If you can't get baptized, then there's really no other definition of the word "Christian" than someone who actually is, in fact, a follower of Jesus! The problem is that 99.99% of Christians don't even pretend to believe anything remotely like what Jesus actually taught. How thoroughly have they perverted the message of the Gospels? They tell us that the central message of Christianity is "faith." What is "faith"? It means you believe in Christianity. Amazing! The central idea of Christianity is that you have to be a Christian. Well, that certainly sets Christianity apart from Islam. The Koran clearly states that you do not, in fact, have to be a Muslim in order to be a devout Muslim. In fact, I've known plenty of devout Muslims who were, in fact, Presbyterians.

If you actually bother to read the Gospels, minus the obscuring fog of two thousand years of DENIAL, you find that Jesus was simply teaching a message that most people can't hack. Jesus described "faith" as being like the Trust Game, in which you fall over backwards and a friend catches you before you hit the ground. Jesus tells his followers to give up their jobs and give everything they own to the poor, because hey, why not? God will take care of you. Jesus says that if a man sues you for your hat, give him your cloak as well. Why not? God will replace them, if you trust him to do it. Jesus even says that if your country is invaded, you shouldn't fight back. Just trust that the invasion is part of God's plan. When was the last time you heard a Christian talk about settling out of court for more than you got sued for?

The fact is that most "Christians" don't want to fling themselves backwards, because they don't trust God to catch them. So, they have to redefine "faith" so that instead of meaning true trust, it just means being a member of the Jesus Club (tm). Presto! No more need to believe in Jesus's bothersome teachings. And the end result is Rush Limbaugh and his dittoheads deriding the Christian Peacemaker hostages and their "idiotic theory" (i.e. Christianity,) and openly rooting for the terrorists who are threatening to kill them.


Now, what about skepticism? Well, suppose you wanted to pretend you were smarter than everyone else. But, you aren't comfortable with the idea of being exposed to new ideas and having to occasionally change your mind. Simple! Just subscribe to magazines like Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic, or buy The Skeptic's Dictionary (aka The Skeptic's Catechism, in handy alphabetical order.) Join your local Skeptic's Society. Be sure to preface your opinions with "I'm a skeptic, so naturally..." As in, "I'm a skeptic, so naturally I don't believe in Bigfoot." If you're Michael Shermer, you can even write an article in Scientific American entitled "Skeptic", so that all your readers will know how skeptical you are, as opposed to all the gullible crap that fills the rest of Scientific American.

Now, I know what the Skeptics are saying at this point. "But we deserve to call ourselves Skeptics, because we really are skeptical!" Yeah, just like Pursuit of Excellence Institute is really an exemplar of excellence in all its forms. Look, two paragraphs ago all the Christians were whining, "You're taking Jesus out of context! We really are Christians!" If you were really so skeptical, then people could figure it out without you having to slap "SKEPTIC" over yourself and all your magazines.

Still not convinced? Just wait. This is only the end of the beginning.

Ask not for what the Architeuthis pursues... it pursues YOU!

Have you ever noticed how certain people always blather on about the need to Pursue Excellence? Bill Cosby gave all his kids names beginning with "E" to perpetually remind them of the need to Pursue Excellence. At my college, I had a professor once who kept moaning about how the school wasn't sufficiently Pursuing Excellence. (Bear in mind that this was one of the top colleges in the U.S.!) One of the deans even hatched a harebrained scheme to Pursue Excellence by declaring that all students would need 32 credits to graduate. Thus if you failed even one course, you would be forced to double up some other semester. (Unless, of course, you were rich enough to take an extra semester of college.)

Let's run this through the Architectonic Decoder Ring, shall we?

Coded text: "We should be committed, now and always, to the Pursuit of Excellence in all its forms."

Decoded text: "We should, like.... (vague handwaving)... you know, be totally awesome!"

You see, smart people have goals like, "I want to provide low-cost health care to the disadvantaged," or "I want to find a cure for cancer," or even, "I want to make a lot of money by becoming the CEO of an ad agency." Stupid people have goals like, uh, you know, man... pursuing, like, total excellence, dude! That's why whenever these morons try to articulate what they want, they use the phrase "pursuit of excellence." They're simply too stupid to think of anything else to say.

It's remarkable how pervasive this obvious bit of horse hockey is. If you want a good laugh at the expense of Homo sheepizens, just google "pursuit of excellence." There's even a Pursuit of Excellence Institute. Wow, imagine that- a institute that actually tries to pursue excellence! Excuse me while I write a quick email to the slackabouts at the Mayo Clinic to say, "Look to the Pursuit of Excellence Institute, thou sluggard, and consider their ways!" And I don't even want to think about www.pursuit.org. What on earth are they about? Let me guess: "We are committed to the pursuit of two things. Excellence, and the most dangerous game of all... man." (By the way, click a few of those links. Isn't it funny that so many of the organizations devoted to the Pursuit of Excellence in its purest form have folded?)

The remarkable thing about our species is that it's trivially easy to declare that you have some positive quality, and people actually believe it, just because you say so! Want people to respect your university? Just put "we are committed to the pursuit of excellence" on your webpage. Want people to think you're an honest politician? Name your campaign vehicle the "straight talk express." If McCain were really a straight talker, that would so thoroughly mark him apart from every other politician on earth that he would instantly get a reputation for honesty, and he wouldn't need to write "STRAIGHT TALKER" across his forehead. How many Nobel laureates do you really think go around using phrases like "pursuit of excellence"? Can you imagine Richard Feynman stepping up to the podium and delivering an hour-long speech on the need to pursue excellence? Of course not. Feynman actually has something to say. The people who talk about the "pursuit of excellence" are the ones too lazy or brain-dead to actually come up with specifics.

The most troubling thing about the Pursuit of Unspecified Excellence is that it is the foundation upon which fascism rests. Just look at Triumph of the Will. Hitler doesn't tell his followers that they need to kill Jews. He tells them that everybody is laughing at Germany, but Germany will show them a thing or two when we all Pursue Excellence! That was a little surprising to me, until I read about the experiences of Ron Jones.

Ron Jones was a high school teacher who got frustrated with the fact that his students kept asking, "Why did people join the Nazis? I know I would never do that." He decided to make a student group named "The Wave" which was, unbenknownst to the students, modeled on the Hitler Youth. But he didn't teach them to be racist. All he did was fill them with slogans about discipline and the need for excellence.

Of course, inherent in the Pursuit of Excellence is the fact that Excellence is totally undefined. It's one thing to say, "We're going to learn all kinds of interesting things about history this semester" or even "We're going to ace the SAT's this year." But Ron Jones convinced his students that the way to achieve excellence was to make sure that at the start of class, all members of The Wave got to their seats as quickly as possible. He would spend hours of class time on drills in which the students would walk from the hallway to their seats, over and over again, while he timed them with a stopwatch. Periodically he would declare, "We've just shaved another second off our personal best! Just think of how much class time we'll gain thanks to these drills!" (I imagine Jones must have had a pretty sardonic sense of humor. If the students actually had stopped to think, they would have realized that the drills were consuming a hundred times more classtime than they could ever possibly save. But, they didn't think at all. They were too busy Pursuing Excellence. Why not drill? It counts as much as anything else.)

Of course, if Excellence is undefined, then there is no goal which can ever actually be achieved, and no progress which can ever be measured. That's why the high-ranking primates at my college kept moaning about how the school wasn't Pursuing Excellence. By any rational measure, the school was doing great, but by their irrationally vague measures, no amount of success could ever satisfy them. And another factor came into play in Ron Jones' experience. If all the students in the Wave managed to get seated a full five seconds before everyone else, they still had to wait and watch those five seconds evaporate while all the non-Wave students got seated. When their Pursuit of Excellence was frustrated, they started pressuring other students to join the Wave. Eventually they started beating up non-Wave students, and in the end the violence took on a racial tinge. Why can't we achieve excellence? The Blacks and the Jews are holding us back because they're not with the program. And in Nazi Germany, their Pursuit of Excellence turned into an effort to kill as many untermenschen as possible. And why not? It counts as much as anything else.

The mechanisms of denial, part 1: Slegs.

There's a Russian science fiction story (I've forgotten the author) about a nefarious device called a "sleg." If you switch on the sleg and slip it into your pocket, you enter a fantasyland in which all your goals have been realized. Society starts to crumble as more and more people retreat into the fantasy world of slegs. A resistance group of people devoted to the destruction of slegs is formed, but ultimately it fails when its members plug into slegs and fantasise that all the slegs have already been destroyed.

I think that this is one of the most perceptive metaphors I've ever seen in science fiction. Any movement, any ideal, can (and, by many of its adherents, will) be corrupted into sleggitude. Slegging is far easier than actually holding to your ideals. Even when you are on the lookout for slegs, you can sleg yourself. One of the fascinating things about Jesus is that he actually understood this. Matthew 7:21-23 is just one example of many:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Of course, no one actually talks about this- it's one of Jesus's teachings that most Christians routinely ignore. (You know, like "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword," and "if a man sues you for your coat, give him your hat as well.") And as best I can tell, very few Christians actually say, "Hey, he's talking about me- if I'm not careful, I might be one of those people who thinks he's a great Christian, but is really just slegging!" When I present this passage to Christians, they usually moan about how Jesus was talking about those horrible gay Christians, or evolutionist Christians, or whatever.

And that is, of course, completely predictable. Even when you warn people about slegs, they find some sleg that will defuse the warning. The resistance plugs into slegs and fantasises that the slegs have been destroyed. If you think about it, it's deeply paranoia inducing. But, of course, most people don't get paranoid over it. They just tell themselves that they're immune to slegs, and that it's all those other sleg-addicted people who are the problem.

News Flash: American teens ignorant of EVERYTHING!

The National Constitution Center did a survey back in 1998 which showed that 2.2% of kids knew that Rehnquist was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but 90% knew that Leonardo DiCaprio was the star of Titanic. At least they didn't blame the kids: "This poll tells us that we all must work to better understand our Constitution. Because kids learn most of all from the example set by adults around them." Don't you love that? "Kids are ignorant of calculus, and it's all the parents' fault for not teaching them calculus!" What are schools for, exactly?

But what is the most troubling implication of this poll, the one from which the NCC pollsters and the MSM shield their eyes with trembling hands, the one which they cannot admit even in the privacy of their own offices? I'll tell you. The poll took place in 1998, during the massive ad blitz in which the combined might of Hollywood and Madison Avenue worked to make sure that the stars of the biggest movie phenomenon since Star Wars were on the cover of every magazine, and fully ten percent of teenagers still didn't know who the star of Titanic was?

It's not that I think it's inherently important to know who movie stars are. It's just that I'm reminded of Dennis Miller's rant against hype. He said he knows who Matthew McConaghey is, who his girlfriend is, what kind of dog he owns, how he likes his eggs... but he doesn't want to know any of that. He doesn't even know how he knows it. He just does. So how do ten percent of teenagers escape knowing that Leonardo DiCaprio is the star of Titanic? What the hell does it take to reach these people?

Let's delve a little more deeply into the results, shall we?

36% of teenagers don't know that "The Club" is supposed to keep your car from getting stolen.

35% of teenagers don't know that you have to be at least 17 to get into an R-rated movie.

47% have never heard of David Letterman's Top Ten List.

42% don't know who Bill Gates is.

12.5% of teenagers couldn't answer the question, "What famous football player was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife in 1995?" And the poll took place in 1998!

Fully 41% of teenagers- nearly half!- cannot even name the Three Stooges!

Clearly people walk around during the day insulated by a fuzzy layer of dreamworld, and physical reality penetrates their solipsistic haze only to a very, very limited degree. The NCC saw this, and shrank from it! Look at the version of the poll they gave to adults: all the questions about the Constitution are there, but not one question about pop culture, because they dreaded the lurking truth!

Duckspeak

The average American has an extremely simplistic view of dishonesty, presumably based on their own experiences of trying to fool people. Mom asks them if they stole a cookie, they deny everything, and then maybe they get caught. Let's look at the salient points here:

1. They are telling a lie: a falsehood dressed up like the truth with the intention of fooling people.

2. They are trying to fool a skeptical audience.

3. If the truth gets out, the jig is up. Even a tiny hole will deflate the balloon of their dishonesty.

Needless to say, the people who run this place are quite happy for the American sheepizens to believe that dishonesty works this way. It provides an illusion of comprehension while simultaneously diverting people from any real ability to understand political reality. To wit: copious evidence will emerge proving that Bush authorized torture, and Bush will step up to the podium and say, "Lemme tellya somethin'- America does NOT torture." Then the liberals declare, "I don't GET it! How can he say that? Doesn't he know that the jig is up, and everyone knows he authorized torture? Cheney is lobbying Congress for the ability to torture people, for Pete's sake!"

What these people fail to understand is that Bush is not lying. To be sure, he's deliberately making statements he knows to be false. But, in order to lie he would have to carefully craft those statements to give them an appearance of truth, he would have to be trying to fool a skeptical audience, and the jig would be up if he got caught. None of these conditions applies. Bush is not lying- he's providing the Kool-Aid drinkers with duckspeak.

Those of you whose memory of Nineteen Eighty-Four has not been rewritten yet will remember that "to duckspeak" is to mindlessly quack out Party propaganda so unthinkingly that it becomes a kind of effortless reflex. Duckspeak is a way for people to shut down troubling thoughts when they want to believe. A lot of people want to believe in Bush. They're troubled by all this talk about torture. So Bush hands them a prearranged script- "America does NOT torture!" Then they can repeat that to themselves any time someone reminds them of the torture issue.

Note how duckspeak differs from lies:

1. It's a falsehood that is not dressed up as truth with the intention of fooling people. Duckspeak is incapable of fooling anyone who does not already have a desperate desire to believe.

2. It can't fool a skeptical audience, and doesn't even try.

3. Therefore, if the truth gets out, it makes no difference. The truth was out from the start, and the purveyors of duckspeak never felt much need to withhold it from the public.

Bush has relied particularly heavily on duckspeak, with the end result being that Bush scandals play out very differently from, say, Watergate.

Nixon tried to prevent information about Watergate from reaching the public. As the scandal developed, new revelations emerged over time, and people wondered whether the President was involved. His involvement was obscured by his lying: he attempted to convince people that he was not involved by trying to pass off false statements as the truth.

A Bush scandal, on the other hand, is revealed completely from day one to anyone with an ounce of intelligence. The "unfolding" of the scandal consists of liberals watching prosecutors navigate Karl Rove's Labyrinth of Plausible Deniability, and waiting with baited breath for some new revelation that will be so dramatic- nay, cinematic- that perhaps it will get through the thick skulls of the Kool-Aid drinkers.

The White Phosphorus controversy is a case in point. As soon as I heard the claim made on Democracy Now! that WP had been used on children in Fallujah, I knew it was true. Don't be an idiot- this is Bush we're talking about. Do you really think Bush cares about incinerating Iraqi children? Besides, we had an enormous amount of forensic evidence to prove the case. Then, the Army spokesman rebutted the claims by declaring- I kid you not- that the Army had killed all those children using conventional weapons, and therefore there was no war crime committed. At this point, what kind of imbecile could possibly doubt that WP was used? The ones who work for the MSM, of course, as has been so extensively documented at Daily Kos.

So, given all that forensic evidence, what are we waiting for? Proof? No- darkly humorous proof. Ultimately it was revealed that the Army had gloated over the "Shake and Bake" strategy of using WP in its own magazine for field artillery officers. That didn't tell us anything we didn't already know, and didn't provide any proof that we didn't already have- but it did make the truth so embarassingly obvious even to a complete moron that the MSM had to change its story. (Do you think the makers of Shake and Bake were concerned about having their product associated with incinerated children? I guess not- Zippo is still going strong. I wonder what clever slang terms these people would come up with if they were running the Holocaust?) Now we're told that America did use WP, but we're told it wasn't a war crime. Of course, we've known from the start of this debate that the relevant treaties on chemical weapons explicitly ban the use of WP... so we already have proof. Now we have to sit around praying for evidence that is funny. You know, ironic in a hoisted-with-their-own-petard kind of way. Sure enough, we ultimately get a Pentagon document declaring that WP was a banned chemical weapon when Saddam used it. Who cares what the treaties say? The Pentagon gets to decide these things, but once they decide, they can't go back on it.

In the end, not only are liberals forced into the position of implicitly endorsing the idea that the Pentagon is above international law (because the Pentagon's statements on WP are portrayed as being of paramount importance, when in reality they have no weight whatsoever,) they also become complicit in the debasement of political discourse. Truth doesn't matter. You can have all the facts on your side, but it doesn't make any difference. The only thing that ever counts is the ability to sneer at people and shout "you suck!" Ha, ha, Pentagon- you voted against WP before you voted for it! Flip-flopper! YOU SUCK!

The Nontransitive Paradox

The Iraqi people could not defeat Saddam.

Saddam could not defeat the U. S.

The U. S. cannot defeat the Iraqi people.

Strange, isn't it? It gets especially interesting when you compare the situation to those "Hitler supported gun control" bumper stickers. Saddam let the Iraqis have plenty of guns. Mysteriously, the easy availability of guns didn't enable the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam. The U.S. has now imposed gun control on Iraq, but that doesn't slow down the insurgency.

Welcome to the Hall of Presidents.

There's only one reason anyone ever heard of the Sphex wasp. When it lays its eggs, it builds a burrow and stuffs a caterpillar into it, to serve as food for its eggs. But if you steal the caterpillar while the wasp is building the burrow, the wasp will go through the motions of putting the caterpillar into the burrow and burying it, oblivious to the fact that it's accomplishing nothing.

Daniel Dennett points to the Sphex as the decisive argument in the debate over determinism and free will. Free will, he declares, lies in the ability to recognize futility. The Sphex can't recognize the futility of its actions because it's like a little clockwork automaton, going through preprogrammed motions. Humans, on the other hand, can recognize futility, so they have free will.

Has Dennett glimpsed the truth? He has, but he has only glimpsed it, and that glimpse has sent him fleeing to hide under the quilt from the monster that lurks under his very bed- the monster of COGNITIVE DISSONANCE! For Dennett cannot permit himself to see the obvious- that he lives in a world full of clockwork people, devoid of free will as they rattle along their tracks!

Do you want proof? Read War Stars: the Super Weapon and the American Imagination, by H. Bruce Franklin, mighty god of the Pantheon of Perspicaciousness, arrayed in lightning and thunderbolts!* Gaze upon it, and despair!

Franklin's history of strategic bombing, in a nutshell: roughly 80 years ago, the military establishment became convinced that strategic bombing was the ultimate weapon to end all wars. In World War II, America tried to defeat Japan by incinerating every single Japanese city with incendiary bombing. That didn't work, so they tried incinerating a few Allied cities- specifically, Japanese-held Chinese cities. That didn't work either. Then they had an idea. Obliterating cities with squadrons of bombers wasn't working, but what if they could obliterate a city with a single bomber? That's the ticket! Then they built the atomic bomb. Truman, in his infinite wisdom, spared three Japanese cities so that they could be destroyed with single bombs instead of multiple ones. Then, just as the Russians destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria, America obliterated two of the remaining three cities on the Japanese mainland. Japan surrendered, obviously due to that last bit of bombing. Thanks be to God that Truman had the wisdom to retain a few cities to nuke! If he had incinerated them with conventional bombs, there wouldn't have been anything left to drop an atomic bomb on, and an invasion of Japan, costing a hundred thousand American lives, would have been inevitable.

Then came the Korean war. North Korea was so saturated with bombs that the few trees left standing were each given individual commemorative plaques by the North Korean government. America mysteriously lost, despite the undeniable supremacy of strategic bombing.

Then came Vietnam. First, we bombed the enemy until there was nothing left to bomb. That didn't work. Looking for something, anything, to turn the ultimate weapon against, we started bombing neutral countries. That didn't work. Then we started bombing our South Vietnamese allies. That didn't work either. We lost.

Flash-forward to Gulf War II. How will the free-willed pinnacle of creation handle this one, with the painful lessons of Vietnam still seared upon their collective memory? It's obvious: they'll launch a blitzkrieg- re-branded "Shock and Awe"- and bomb the absolute kajingus out of Iraq. After such a massive bombardment, controlling the country will certainly be a cakewalk, right?

And what's the big issue in the news today? Bush is trying to get us all wound up over Iran.

* This blog is not associated with or paid for by H. Bruce Franklin in any way.

Why do people believe weird things about people who believe weird things?

I've noticed that people very frequently ask, "How can such a smart person believe something so stupid?" Usually they ask it when some prominent scientist or other public intellectual is revealed to believe in some strange religion. (Arthur C. Clarke even asked it in that context in Rendezvous with Rama.) Michael Shermer even wrote a book entitled Why People Believe Weird Things, with special reference to Why Smart People Believe Weird Things.

Personally, I have a unique perspective on this question. I was the only evolutionist in an evangelical high school. People would always ask, "How can Wintermute be so smart, but believe in something as stupid as evolution?" Meanwhile, I'd look at Arthur C. Clarke and wonder, "How can someone so smart not believe that Jesus is coming again within the next couple of decades?" And, of course, Michael Shermer was looking at us and wondering, "What kind of brain pathology drives these people to Believe Weird Things?"

Ultimately, "why do people believe weird things?" isn't an entirely honest question. Take Bigfoot, for example. Is Bigfoot weird? Apes live in Africa, they live in Indonesia, and monkeys live all over the world. If someone believes that apes also happen to live in North America, well, gosh, what drives people to believe that crazy stuff? Then there's quantum mechanics, which, as we all know, is not weird in the slightest. Let's face it: weirdness isn't the defining factor here. What people really want to know is, "How come so many smart people disagree with me?" But Michael Shermer can't write a book with that title, so he has to spin it a bit.

I'm particularly amused by the explanation that so many people come up with: "Well, it just goes to show that people can compartmentalize their brains, and they keep all the rational stuff in the rational compartment, and all the irrational stuff in the irrational compartment." Translation: "It's inconceivable that any rational person could possibly disagree with my strongly held beliefs. But, here's someone who really does disagree with me! I know- he must have two brains. One of them works great, and believes the same kind of stuff I do. The other one disagrees with me, so it must be totally cracked!"

And whenever someone asks Why People Believe Weird Things, they're clutching at a security blanket. When they talk about "weird beliefs," they're assuring themselves that they can reliably identify certain beliefs as being obviously incorrect and not worth further analysis. You know, kind of like that time back in the 1980's when Newsweek mocked John Kerry as a "foppish conspiracy theorist" for suggesting that the CIA was secretly supporting the Contras. They want to believe that they're somehow different from the people who think that Al Gore is a shapeshifting pedophile lizard from Zeta Reticuli. Guess what? Believing in the lizard business doesn't drive people to support the invasion of Iraq.

America's #1 Conspiracy Theory

Have you ever wondered how many of the people who read (and for that matter write for) Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic are conspiracy theorists? After all, polls say that something like 75% of Americans are conspiracy theorists. They believe that the sinister Vietnamese government has been holding American servicemen prisoner for the past three decades. Apparently Vietnam wants to use them as a bargaining chip, even though they mysteriously never make any demands. And naturally, the only evidence for this belief is the utter and total absence of evidence. "Vietnam denies holding American POW/MIA's. That proves they're really holding them! After all, if they aren't really holding POW's, what possible motive would they have for lying? If they really don't have any POW's, why do they consistently refuse to hand them over?" This is, incidentally, one of the few conspiracy theories which really fits that Skeptical stereotype. JFK conspiracy theorists don't say that the conspiracy is proven by the absence of evidence- they point to the Zapruder film, the photo of the grassy knoll, Oswald's CIA connections, etc. Who really and truly points to the total lack of evidence as proof of their conspiracy theory? The federal, state, and local governments that fly POW/MIA flags. That's what gives the conspiracy theory a respectability which JFK theories lack. If you had never heard of the POW/MIA issue and some homeless man told you that Vietnam was secretly torturing American POW's 30 years after the fact, you would think he was insane.

So, how do the paragons of critical thinking respond? A search for "Vietnam" on the Skeptical Inquirer website pulled up, honest to God, articles on Bigfoot. That's right- the most banal paranormal phenomenon possible, even in theory. If I had the mysterious power to shake exactly two aspirin out of the bottle every time, that would have more significance than the existence of Bigfoot. On the other hand, our government is exploiting the grief of a couple of thousand families, knowing full well that the POW/MIA story is utter and total horse hockey, because their own files show that many of the "MIA's" are unrecovered because their planes crashed into the ocean in full view of aircraft carrier crews. Naturally, Skeptical Inquirer gives this reprehensible fraud exactly as much attention as it gave the Nigerien yellowcake: none whatsoever. They're too busy proving that the Lake Grundlegrunt monster doesn't exist. What's that? You've never heard of Lake Grundlegrunt, a town of 762 people who holds an annual Monsterfest to bring in tourist dollars? Well, maybe if you read Skeptical Inquirer instead of mediamatters.org you would be a well-informed person. And as far as I can tell, Skeptic and The Skeptic's Dictionary are similarly more concerned with irrelevant hoaxes than with the great and fatal frauds of our time.

Let's have a multiple-choice quiz. Why don't the Skeptics take on the POW/MIA myth?

1. Nobody believes in the Lake Grundlegrunt sea monster. Precious few people have even heard of it. So if you want to badmouth it, no one will cancel their subscription. On the other hand, plenty of people will cancel their subscription if you take on POW/MIA, Nigerian uranium, the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, or any of countless other government hoaxes. Play it safe: only attack beliefs that you already know your readers sneer at.

2. Yes, the POW/MIA myth is a conspiracy theory. But it posits a foreign government run by Sadistic Asian Devils as the bad guys. But in order to debunk it, the Skeptics have to admit that a government conspiracy of American White Guys (Nixon, Kissinger, and Perot, to be exact) deliberately promulgated the POW/MIA myth. Well, gosh, Skeptics would never want to promulgate a conspiracy theory- only crazy people believe that Nixon was secretly up to no good.

3. Skeptics are like any other conspiracy theorists: they cannot accept the fundamental randomness and meaninglessness of historical change. JFK conspiracy theorists can't accept that a lone nut with a rife can change the course of history, so they posit the comforting belief that the CIA secretly has everything under control. The Skeptics can't accept that a lone nut with a military prison deep in the Vietnamese jungle is the most logical explanation for the MIA's, so they retreat into the comforting delusion that the Vietnamese government is behind their ongoing incarceration.

I don't pretend to know the answer. I don't have to pretend- I do know the answer. But don't expect me to tell you. Such things are not to be thrown cheaply to the ears of the profane.

SPEND THIRTY DAYS FASTING IN THE WILDERNESS TO PREPARE YOURSELF FOR THE MIND-SEARING PHILIP K. DICKIAN REVELATIONS OF H. BRUCE FRANKLIN'S VIETNAM AND OTHER AMERICAN FANTASIES. READ THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LIES THE SKEPTICS DARE NOT FACE, AND TREMBLE!