Why Skeptic?

[This is also posted at the Canberra Skeptics Blog]

Everyone is sceptical, it's by necessity since there are a whole bunch of different contradictory beliefs out there. And while someone can hold two simultaneous contradictory beliefs, we can recognise that in general being for some particular beliefs means rejecting others.

Consider explicit scepticism such as the anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers. They don't accept the mainstream explanation for whatever reason and instead substitute in their own. Then there are those who engage in implicit scepticism, by pure virtue of holding a contradictory position. Think of the creationist who believes in the inerrant word of God, or the psychic who talks to the dead and what that implies.

Yet we don't consider these people as Skeptics. While they are sceptical these are the people we consider credulous. That should tell us something about what a Skeptic is. Then there's the notion of philosophical sceptics, the ones who have walked the path of the Cartesian demon and found themselves but not a way back. And while we are at it, let's not forget the post modernists who have turned knowledge into a cultural construct.


Each of us is sceptical in our own way, but we aren't Skeptics. When Bill Maher rants about Big Pharma, we as Skeptics realise he has reached a failure in critical thinking. Because being a Skeptic is not just doubting stuff, it's taking on the maxim that belief should be proportional to the evidence. Bill Maher shares the distinction with anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers and creationists in that the sceptical position is not taking into consideration the relevant evidence.

There are good reasons to be sceptical of Big Pharma, but is that reason to dismiss all products that Big Pharma produces? Surely one should be looking at the success of the product itself, something that is verified through empirical peer review. Just as the failure of 9/11 truthers is by which they create a more implausible narrative, implausible because the evidence is against it. Not just the lack of evidence but of the evidence underlying the explanation.

I'll expand on that point. When someone alleges that crop circles were made by alien craft (sceptical that people could make them) they are alleging something involving the great distances of space. We don't know if it's even possible to participate in interstellar travel, let alone that life capable of doing so exist. The narrative involving aliens has plenty of evidence against in this respect, what we know about the universe makes such an explanation highly unlikely.

Likewise the 9/11 truthers are making an evidential claim about behaviour that just doesn't make sense. The more people, the harder it is to keep a secret. More people to leak it, more people with a conscience. It's inventing more implausible narratives at each step to explain the first implausible narrative. Even without an explanation, a grand conspiracy is a bad one.


It is not enough and cannot be enough just to doubt stuff, because doubt is always filtered through our preconceived notions of how things are - be they intuitive, taught or experienced. It's no surprise that people who are sceptical of evolution so easily see an intelligent agent behind the complexity, or that 9/11 dictates a more ordered explanation than a few fundamentalist Muslims hijacking planes.

Even in the case of medicine where extensive testing and use means that side effects are disclosed, we hear about drug recalls and doubts over their safety all the time. Yet we seldom hear about "alternative medicine", the dangers of chemotherapy sound horrible but a homoeopathic cancer remedy is side-effect free.

To echo Carl Sagan: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" because a claim is extraordinary because of how much it diverges from the way we know the world works. It's easy to be sceptical of claims, but to be a Skeptic is dedicating oneself to the notion that belief should be proportional to the evidence. Doubt is a good starting point, but only if it applied to all ideas. To dismiss vaccines while taking homoeopathic vaccines is not being a Skeptic, just selectively applying scepticism. A Skeptic should be open to the possibility that they are wrong however difficult that is to do. Why? Because if we can't do it then how can we expect others to?

What Our World Cup Tells Us

So the Socceroos are now out, left stranded from the calamity that was the loss to Germany. Despite a strong showing with 10 men against Ghana and beating a good Serbian outfit, those 4 goals the Germans scored in game one was the difference. So close yet so far, we couldn't get out of the group stage. And unlike France, our exit barely rates a mention on the world radar.

But before we engage in "what-ifs" and then consign the Socceroos (and Pim Verbeek) to the scrap heap, perhaps it is wise to reflect on what they did rather than what could have been.

This is the 2nd world cup we've made in a row, and the first one where we had to fight it out over more than just two legs. Getting through Asia was no lean feat, especially going in unseeded and being the first team (along with Japan and Netherlands) to qualify for the World Cup. At times it wasn't pretty, but we earned the right to be there. Back in 2006, we got there on effectively a coin toss.

In 2006 we got further, fans are still seething over the Italian dive that eliminated us. Then it was only Ukraine in our way and into the semi-finals! Whoops, engaging in a "what-if" again. Both world cups we ended on 4 points, through by virtue of a draw between the other two teams vying for 2nd place behind Brazil. We beat Japan while Croatia didn't. Thus we only needed 4 points.

Truth be told, we were lucky to get to the 2nd round. Japan might have been fortunate to get their goal, but the 3-1 score line wasn't reflective of the game. We had to come from behind twice against Croatia, good result but hardly a comfortable path beyond the group stages. Even in the round of 16, Italy played for almost half a match with 10 men and we barely had a chance.

This time around, Germany was our only down-point, the 1-1 draw against Ghana with only 10 men for 70-odd minutes was a rugged display. Serbia were tough and looked dangerous at times, but so did we and the result was well-deserved. Yet "first round exit" will forever be associated with Pim while Guus gets nothing but praise for guiding us to the 2nd round.


The 2011 Asian Cup in Qatar is only just over 6 months away and it's that event that should take focus. There's no point in talking about how Australia does on the world stage before we are Asian champions. A huge lot of media focus once every four years and the eventual dissection is only going to perpetuate Australia being a bit-part of the football landscape.

This World Cup if nothing else we should have proved to ourselves that we deserved to be there. Yet now that we are gone, what can we say about the impact on the game? Over the last few weeks, I've heard more about Harry Kewell's health than I know about my own. Very little about tactics, more about fitness of key players. To the uninitiated, merely another part of a sideshow that will now be relegated behind the weekly Aussie Rules and Rugby League.

Every 4 years the Olympics comes around, and coverage is pretty much purely in the pursuit of Australian gold - not the spectacle itself, but how many medals we won compared to the rest of the world. It's chasing national glory on the hard work of a few individuals. It's no surprise that most our medals are won in the pool, it's what Olympic sport gets coverage beyond the few weeks of glory. A winner in an obscure sport is a sideshow, we can bask in the glory of the DIY champion then back to the footy or cricket depending on the time of year.

Yet history shows that individual determination and the DIY attitude isn't enough. All nations that have won the world cup live and breathe football. Even the nations who have never won but are serious contenders all share this same distinction. How can we possibly hope to share in Johnny Warren's dream of winning the World Cup until we do this?

I forget, we aren't a football nation. Just a mix of football bandwagoners who can bask in the glory when our team does well and dismiss the sport on the grounds of diving and draws when it does not. We owe it to our team not to be bandwagoners hoping to add to a long list of sports we dominate already because we will never get there.

The wrangling over stadia for a hypothetical World Cup bid was pathetic. The NRL and AFL both turned it into a pissing contest, and for what exactly? It's unlikely that we'll actually get the World Cup, it was no more than an alpha male display. Yet another part of the sideshow...


As I said before, I'm going to enjoy this tournament regardless of the Socceroos lack of participation. The best football talent is on display, and if interest can continue to be shown even in the absence of Australian participation, perhaps more people can see why football is referred to as "the beautiful game".

They Just Expect Too Much!

In keeping with the theme of the World Cup, I want to talk about the one thing that perplexes me more than why anyone would think it a good idea to blow a vuvuzela: the English media's portrayal of their national team.

While there are 32 teams that enter the World Cup, we know that a few are just there to make up the numbers. Barring a miracle, they will be gone in the first round and serve merely as an appetiser to main course. Then there are a few nations that could get to the 2nd round or if they are lucky reach the quarter finals, but that's it. Then there are a number of nations who could be there come finals time. Even fewer are nations who could really go on and win it. While football can bring surprises, unexpected wins and failed expectations, realistically we have a fair idea of when a nation under or over-performs.

What perplexes me is that England keep getting put in that final category, the expectation on this team and every English team from my football memory is that they will add to the sole trophy they won in 1966. Yet they continually fail to meet the lofty expectations. Even the WAGs are used as an excuse for the persistent failure.

Yet it all makes sense if England are classified wrongly. They aren't world-beaters, nor have they really put forward a team for a long time that were capable of being so. The English media has it wrong, this World Cup especially given they didn't qualify for Euro 2008!

Perhaps this is being a little harsh, but I can't really see what justifies the pressure and expectation put on England. Where are their match-winners? Where will the goals come from? Who in the side can come off the bench and be a game changer? Back in 2002, there was so much press about David Beckham and that injury that could have ruined England's chances. And it did, because England has a David Beckham type character they put all their hopes in and that's it. This time around it's Wayne Rooney, who is on his day a world class player. But that's it!


Looking at other countries it's easy to see why they are put up as potential tournament winners. Spain: Euro 2008 champions boasting a line-up that could front any team in the world. Argentina: so blessed in talent that they can leave Inter's Diego Milito on the bench. Brazil: they could afford to leave Ronaldinho at home while still boasting a formidable line-up and 5-time winners. Germany: a great track record at World Cups. That's just to name a few.

It's important to remember that if you just take four nations: Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, you have at least one of the finalists from every one of the 18 world cups so far. They account for 14 of the 18 trophies. Another thing to consider is that every World Cup held outside Europe has had a non-European victor. While I have no reason to expect that trend to continue indefinitely (in 1994, a penalty shoot-out was the only barrier to it being broken) it's still a reason not to expect a European team to do well. My money if I were a betting man would be on Argentina.


But back to England, perhaps my anti-English bias has led me to ignore just what is so great about the team. I can't see them as being a serious competitor yet again. They are a quarter final team expected to compete with powerhouses who are more technically proficient and have a greater depth.

If they are bundled out tomorrow, I will not be surprised in the slightest. Even if they do make it through the group phase, it's only a matter of time until they inevitably exit and the media starts looking for an excuse. Yet without good reasons to expect them to emulate what happened in 1966, it's just creating unrealistic expectations for their adoring public. They are a quarter final team (at best) that are expected to be world-beaters. No wonder they have an irate fan-base!

On Rationality (The Perfect Solution Fallacy)

My job requires a high degree of logic and mathematics, something I've spent years of my life training specifically for. Programming isn't innate in our brains, it's something that is learned. Perhaps I have a brain that is more mathematically-inclined than others and mathematics / logic come more easily to me than other people, but still it's taken a lot to train my brain to think that way.

One of the more interesting things about the Dunning-Kruger effect was that people who had higher abilities tended to underestimate their the superiority of their abilities in regard to other people. Perhaps one can be forgiven for thinking that because they are logically inclined that while they are good at it that there might not be such a gap between the top and bottom.

Trained scientists and philosophers have spent even more time honing their respective skills. So it's again no surprise that there's a disparity between scientific acceptance of ideas or between abilities of philosophical reasoning and the general public. It's no wonder that so many people reject scientific ideas, they are essentially relying on the authority of the discipline. The layperson isn't trained to understand the evidence and that needs to be taken into account.


What compelled me to write this post was a quote put on the blog Reasonably Aaron. I find that quote quite appalling because it's in effect a resignation to the irrationality of society. No point in expecting others to be rational, the expectation is too unrealistic.

And there is a truth in there, it's the way things are. How can trained scientists and philosophers possibly grasp how untrained people think? The futility is no more evident than in accounts of "debates" between creationists and biologists where biologists wipe the floor with the argument only to find the crowd eager to congratulate the creationist for sticking it to the evil Darwinists.

But is all hope lost? While an IS doesn't imply an OUGHT, an OUGHT has to apply an IS. If society is irredeemably irrational, then however noble the goal it is an exercise in futility and false hope. And a society full of Spocks is an impossible dream, even among those most trained in rational thinking there are bursts of irrationality that shine through. Is anyone arguing for that, though?


To quote David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Starting with reason gets us nowhere, we can't start from a pure idea and get anywhere meaningful. What makes us human is not lost by the use of rationality, but it has its place.

And what of sciences? Does participating in the scientific process itself fall into absurdity because of the unscientific population? Perhaps Hypatia would attest to this, the symbolism of her death as a transition to the dark ages is exceeded by the brutality she was subjected to. The futility of the scientific method perhaps embodied in bringing on society's own demise? Fuelled by the fast depletion of resources, building more destructive weaponry and handing powerful knowledge to people who don't understand the power they wield... it would be a great irony if our own progress led to our eventual demise.

But our demise is guaranteed anyway. Eventually our species will go extinct, we will eventually leave no descendants and all that matters in our world will be for nothing. Even if our species can last, we are going to eventually face an inhospitable world, giant asteroids, calderas, the death of the sun, eventual destruction of matter and of the universe itself. Take your pick, we are doomed to extinction. Talk about building castles on sand, we know that all castles will one day be nothing more than rubble in a lifeless (let alone humanless) reality.

Of course, such an example is absurd. We don't consider finality even though it's an inevitability. Finite and contingent beings looking at the infinite makes no sense! Yet what is the difference between the billion years that will mean the earth is uninhabitable and a thousand years or even 100 years? There is a difference, but only one of those targets is really one that makes sense on the scales we can look at. 100 years is still 4 or 5 generations, more than the lifetime of all but a few individuals. Yet 100 years is less than the reach of Einstein, it's much less than the reach of Hume or Newton, or Descartes, or even Pythagoras.


To put this into perspective, it was only 5,000 years ago that we discovered writing. It was a little bit over 10,000 years ago that wheat was first domesticated. Fire perhaps 1.5 million years old. Hunting tools maybe 2.5 million years ago. Each one we can accept as a product of rationality, a cultural additive that has stood the test of time through its functional use.

Think about that for a moment. One of a member of our ancestral species was able to craft a rock into a means to hunt. And that means was so successful that it was copied and copied and modified and copied - so much so that 2.5 million years later we have the legacy of that piece of rationality with us. However our ancestors first harnessed fire, we have many ways of using it now.

We have minds that are semi-rational to begin with. As Michael Shermer puts it, our brains are great at finding causal connections. We are pattern-seeking creatures. Of course this brainware isn't perfect, but it's something. Likewise we are intuitive physicists, intuitive biologists and intuitive psychologists (for discussions of the evidence for this, see Bruce Hood's Supersense). Our brains are wired for a particular level of rationality intuitively. Again, not perfect but it's a start.


So where can I evidence the OUGHT? I think there are two different cases to be made for this. The first is in learning skills that almost all society has which we aren't exactly wired for. The second is looking at the role of rationality in society.

To take two examples: writing and mathematics. Storytelling seems to be something that goes back before homo sapiens, but transmission of stories and information is a modern (relatively speaking) invention. It was only a few thousand years ago that writing was discovered. Yet now we are in a society where it's extremely abnormal to come across anyone who can't write any more. We spend years in school learning how to do this abnormal activity, completely alien to our ancestors but the brains we have make it a possibility.

Mathematics too is something we use every day. While so many will say they aren't good at maths, they are able to function in an environment where maths is the basis for trade. Again for the purposes of rationality, we can see a rational activity being part of everyday life. The irrationality we talk about with people's use of money is its use in relation to future prosperity and wastefulness. But again, that's something that can be taught.

So within a society we can see both the value of rational activity as well as widespread propagation, what about of societies themselves? Again, two examples. Italy in the 17th century and South Korea in the 20th century. To very much simplify history, the renaissance in Italy was shut down with the Catholic Church wielding its power as the source of knowledge. As a result, nations that were more susceptible to the Enlightenment thrived while Italy did not. It's a terrible shame what happened to Galileo, again a symbol of the struggle of rationality against irrational forces but it should not be forgotten what he had to sacrifice because he refused to relent.

South Korea is a much more optimistic story, ravaged by war and with an economy equivalent to Mexico, instead of using labour to bring economic prosperity, it invested in education. It has paid off remarkably, with South Korea being one of the world's most advanced technological societies as well as an economic powerhouse.


I hope from those examples, there are reasons to encourage that the OUGHT is more than just a pipe-dream of the idealist, but something that can realistically be obtained. Given the problems that we know the would could and will face in the coming years and decades, protecting rationality IS a must because rationality IS the only way we are going to be able to beat these problems and maintain our prosperity. We OUGHT to protect rationality because rationality IS the best tool we have for achieving our desires. It's an extension of what makes us human, not an alien way of thinking but an idealised form of what we do now. A goal, an aspiration, however you want to put it, is in a realistic form still better than to ignore it completely.

A Fool's Hope

I love the FIFA World Cup, it's the one global sporting event I'm guaranteed to be excited about regardless of who is playing. Coming from a nation that admittedly is not a football powerhouse, most times I don't have to watch knowing the inevitability of watching my nation drop out - because we're not even there to begin with!

But this time, like last time, we are there. And that changes things as a spectator. While I would love Australia to win and hope they do, realistically I'm expecting them to exit. Because ultimately while teams in our position occasionally make fairy-tale runs, we're there to make up the numbers. I don't say that cynically, plenty of nations are there that won't win. But even to get that far (remember this is the finals, it takes years of hard work to qualify) is a fantastic achievement and something to be proud of our team for doing.

For years Australia was a big fish in a small pond, dominating a region of Island nations where the closest thing to a challenge was taking on the rugby nation of New Zealand. Getting to the 2006 World Cup at the expense of Uruguay and moving into Asia were huge for our development as a football nation. That we qualified for the finals and were among the first nations to do so (Japan and Netherlands qualified that same day) should be enough.

Nonetheless I'm still disappointed when we lose. The match against Germany was pathetic, they are a better team and traditional world cup powerhouse, but still it was painful to watch. Perhaps we as Australians aren't used to being a small nation in any sport, we're either world contenders or we just don't care. Football is something the whole world cares about and we aren't on top!

The atrocious time zones make watching games tough. I pushed sleep last night to catch the Socceroos draw with Ghana, wrapped in a blanket and staring intently at the television. It was a game we (as in Australia, collectively, expressing themselves through a sporting team) needed to win and we couldn't do it. But thanks to Serbia shocking Germany, qualifying is still a real possibility however improbable. If we can beat Serbia, we stand a chance of qualifying regardless of the outcome in the game between Germany and Ghana.


It's not guaranteed that if we win we qualify. We have to win convincingly, how convincingly depends on the outcome for the other game. If we lose or draw, we're out so those results aren't to be considered. So take the three outcomes.

1. Germany win - If I were a betting man this is the outcome I would bet on. If Germany beat Ghana, the margin in that game and our game matters. Ghana are currently +1 in their goal difference while we are -4. We have to get a higher goal difference or equal to where we score a greater number of goals. So if Germany win 1-0, we'd have to win by 4 goals against Serbia. A 3 - 0 score-line would mean we have to by 2 goals.
2. A draw - If there's a draw then we would need to win by 7 goals, maybe 8 if the draw is a 3-3 score-line. So it is possible but terribly unlikely.
3. Ghana win - We would only need to win against Serbia if Ghana manage to upset Germany.

Of course Serbia have a say in all this too, it's not just pure will on account of our Socceroos. But in sport it never is. But all is not lost yet, and it's not purely on the hope that things will go our way (unlike France who will be knocked out regardless of their result if Mexico and Uruguay draw). We can qualify regardless of the result in the other game and that's enough to give me hope. A fool's hope, but hope nonetheless.


Unlike fans of England, inevitable exit is an expectation rather than seen as a perpetual failure. Truth be told, I'm just happy our team is there. The performance last night was enough to show that we did deserve our place in the final 32 even if we don't go beyond that. Playing with 10 men for over half a man and holding our own against one of the best African nations going while showing the resolve we normally characterise with being Australian, it was something positive to take away. And when we do go out, there's still going to be enough great football to watch, but it will be different. Aussies are used to being passive observers of the world up, which is what we will go back to being the moment we lose. Until that time, I reserve my right as a spectator to engage in all the highs and lows and feeling robbed by dodgy refs that comes with being one!