Too cool, part 11: Sylvan Heights Bird Park

Al Denelsbeck


As I indicated in the previous post, we had a trip planned that might produce some new images, and while I’d like to build the suspense to the point of frustration, I find this a hard thing to do, especially when I lead the post off with a header photo. So yes, we did get some useful stuff, and this will be another multiple post.

Nature photographers, as well as amateur naturalists and simply people interested in animals, need to get out from time to time to places where close encounters are virtually guaranteed – in the case of nature photographers, it’s to build stock images and add some portrait and interest-style pics, but it also helps to learn a bit more about whatever species you can. Sylvan Heights Bird Park has been on my list for a few years now, but it sits in a remote town in NC called Scotland Neck, which really isn’t close to anything except I-95. However, it’s well worth the special trip, and more than once, too. It’s not just the variety or good opportunities for avian photos, but the fact that it is almost interactive.

The first indication of what kind of a day it would be came early on, having entered the park and started out on the deck observing the first pond. While comparing the number of birds, mostly ducks, that were coming up for morning chow, The Girlfriend began making excited attention-getting sounds while being unable to create any actual words. I was trying to remember the procedure for the Heimlich maneuver when I saw what had her attention, which was a young crane eagerly following a park worker up the path like a puppy. The worker heard us, and on return helpfully came over to allow us a closer look. Her companion was a nine-week-old Sarus Crane (Grus antigone), about 80 cm (2 ft) tall and still in the needy stage. That alone probably would have sealed the deal, at least as far as The Girlfriend was concerned, but it was only the start.

The park has several aviary sections with gates that the public is invited to enter, which puts them among a wide selection of fowl each time. Typically, low fences separate the public from the natural areas for the birds, but this doesn’t mean that some of the birds won’t come by out of curiosity or the thought of a handout (food is available to be given out to the birds if desired.) From a nature photographer’s viewpoint, this has both bad and good points. The fencing and netting is a necessary part of having a public attraction such as this, but it does produce a number of limitations if you’re trying to leave such things out of your images (and you should.) However, most of the areas are fairly large and provide angles to eliminate the man-made aspects, so while it isn’t possible to photograph every species this way, most can be exploited with a little effort.

For the Abyssinian Ground Hornbill (Bucorvus abyssinicus) at top, I was able to shoot through the fencing by putting the lens against the openings, producing only the subtle staggered background seen behind her head. The fence was necessary, however, as she tried to greet my close approaches with that massive beak, and while she might simply have wanted a handout, finding out the hard way that she was being protective of her territory is something I’d prefer to avoid.

The other side of this coin was the pair of Victoria Crowned Pigeons (Goura victoria) who came up to the fence at our feet and hung out for portraits, then hopped onto the railing to really mug it up, even nibbling on The Girlfriend’s lenshood in the vague hope that Canon had finally made one that was edible (we’ve all been waiting.) There’s always a part of me that’s prepared for the defensive peck or bite, since what appears friendly to us is often intended as a menacing warning sign from birds, but the Vics were totally blasé about our presence. Another Crowned Pigeon, this one alone in a cage nearby, began producing a remarkable call, so bass that it was hard to trace and almost disturbing – I can recommend bringing either a sound recording device or video camera to capture the full range of experience within the park. Also, when shooting digital, be sure to snap the identification signs as you go so you have a record of the species later on.

The various bird calls, of course, form a jungle-movie soundtrack of background noise throughout the park, occasionally interspersed with someone’s piercing cries just, apparently, for the hell of it. The Argus Pheasant (Argusianus argus) could produce a “Wooo!” that would have made Michael Jackson give up in frustration, and started a string of calls that got gradually faster until it sounded like a siren. A Dark-winged Trumpeter (Psophia viridis) favored us with a rattling sound much like the local crows, which I imitated by dragging my finger against the cage fencing, thereby eliciting a brief conversation. I have no idea what either of us said, but I suspect the bird was simply correcting my pronunciation.

The park itself is the offshoot of a decades long breeding program by the founder, Mike Lubbock, who started it as a private preserve in 1989, only opening the public center in 2006. Thus, much of it is dedicated to threatened and endangered species around the globe, and a whole portion of the facility is separate from the public park, which is where breeding programs for zoos and conservation efforts take place. There were several species that we saw that we already knew from the NC Zoological Park and the three NC aquariums, and we suspect we now know where they came from.

It also provides the opportunity to see some rare and endangered species up close and personal, as well as some really vivid ones, like this startlingly iridescent Himalayan Monal Pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus,) also known as an Impeyan Monal or Danphe. The difference between the male and female (the male shown here) is so drastic as to convince virtually anyone that they are completely separate species. And the nice thing about two people shooting is that one of you can save the ass of the other when they fail to get a decent image, as happened here.

I’ve never been too excited about ducks, which admittedly is where the strength of this park lies – there are more species here than I’ve seen in any other facility or collection, from every continent. Regardless, if you’re into birds in the least, this is a great place to visit, showing off species, plumage, and behavior in prime viewing conditions. Photographers won’t need a long telephoto lens to get decent photos – most of my shots were done with my 24-135mm workhorse – but a tele can produce great portraits from even the shy residents. The park is also kid-friendly, handicapped accessible, and picnic lunches are welcome. Check it out!

Coming up: more photos and encounters from the park… which can now be found here.

That’s not right

Al Denelsbeck

I’ve had this image kicking around for a few years now, so I figured I’d feature it as a bump while I’m away, hopefully getting some new images.

In nearby Duke Forest, there’s a tree that developed in a rather curious way, one that (as a complete non-botanist or -arborist or -treeist,) I cannot attempt to explain. Perhaps someone has been dumping cthulhu into the creek. Anyway, what you’re seeing here is largely all the same tree, even the blotchy blob in the foreground. Towards the bottom, and again to the right, are two sizable stones that I’m fairly certain I couldn’t lift myself, but the Ent seems to be a bit maternal towards them. If you are doubting your own eyes (or suspecting my Photoshop skills,) clicking on the image will provide a higher resolution version. This unsavory miscegenation of vegetation and phlegm has been thriving quite happily for the several years in which I’ve hurriedly passed it by. Even the companion plants growing within its unholy embrace cannot disguise what is probably the entrance to the underworld, or perhaps the dread lair of the Fraggles. Just the mere mention begat their arcane chanting within your head, didn’t it?

So, when my posts halt and you hear of central Carolina under the onslaught of Squishington, you now have some idea how it happened. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to de-convert all those who insist that the beauty of nature is proof of god’s existence by showing them this image. It hasn’t failed yet.

Book Review: Paranormality

Al Denelsbeck

In an earlier post, I refuted a handful of responses to an interview of Richard Wiseman after the release of his new book, and now, I have finally had the chance to read the book itself. Let’s just say that those who need this book the most are the ones who are likely finding every excuse not to read it.

What?Paranormality: Why We See What Isn’t There by Professor Richard Wiseman is a handbook of the ways that our perceptions are easily fooled. Anyone familiar with Wiseman’s website knows that he often engages his readers in experiments, and this book is no exception. In fact, it is the first I’ve seen of an interactive book, in that he not only provides some exercises for the reader, all very easy to perform, but intersperses QR codes throughout, which provide smartphones enabled with appropriate applications the ability to go directly to video demonstrations and interviews – for the readers without a Star Trek tricorder, the links are provided alongside. Since he could not find a publisher willing to bite on this subject matter in the states, a truly ridiculous state of affairs considering some of the total schlock I’ve seen printed, it is also available as an e-book, able to be read on any of the e-readers that can load the Kindle format, or (as in my case) Kindle software for the PC. For any web-enabled reader, these links are clickable.

Wiseman investigates the type of curious phenomena that usually get labeled as paranormal, mystical, or spiritual, but this leads him into the more down-to-earth disciplines such as psychology and perception as well – in fact, he demonstrates that these are often inextricably linked. There is a difference between what we experience and what we think we experience, all too often, and his goal is to provoke the reader to understand this. Magicians exploit this all the time, and the funny thing is, we accept it in those circumstances; virtually no one believes that the sudden appearance of a coin or the rejoining of snipped rope occurs through supernatural powers. Curiously, though, many people cannot apply this knowledge to television psychics and ghostly encounters – disbelief is not only avoided, it is often considered to be close-minded and stubborn, thus the negative connotations of the word “skeptic.” Wiseman examines how often we are mistaken about what we experience, from historical through present-day examples, and includes several reader exercises to demonstrate how easy it is to fool our senses – he even instructs the reader how to have an out-of-body experience, or engage in lucid (controlled) dreaming! This helps establish that such phenomena cannot simply be put down to the intensely gullible or to elaborate hoaxes, much less actual paranormal experience, but are symptoms of human perception and mentality. In addition, he shows how testing these cases sometimes requires both creativity and insight.

Those remain the most interesting portions of the book, despite the participatory exercises. Michael Faraday’s method of testing subconscious muscle movements, later to be termed “ideomotor actions,” was quite clever, and more importantly, required the consideration that table tipping might, just might, be caused by something other than spirits. Belief is one of humanity’s most damaging traits, because it halts all examination into something curious – the people who discover not only the hoaxes, but the peculiar functioning of both body and mind, could only do so by questioning the given explanations. Wiseman does a great job in allowing the reader to see for themselves how many peculiar functions our bodies and minds really have.

In some ways, however, this may backfire. Some of Wiseman’s demonstrations work better in groups of people, where the average results can show the point better than a single example, which may fall outside the predictions. Also, my guess is that the reader is typically going to be on their guard against thinking traps from the very nature of the book, and thus make some effort not to be among the “average” respondent. In one case, he asks the reader to memorize a set of words, and later on asks for these to be recounted, giving some key words as reminders. The point is to show how simple cues could help spark our memory, but in my case, I had already memorized the list through mnemonic structure solely to dodge the thinking trap that I suspected was coming. I also don’t go to parties, which is where many of Wiseman’s exercises would be most effective (and entertaining.)

Another small issue I had is with the overall tone. The writing style that comes through has a hint of simplification to it, as if Wiseman was addressing middle-school students, which isn’t usually necessary even with middle-school students. This wasn’t bad, certainly not condescending, but it seemed to result in the subjects being treated more superficially than was warranted, and could perhaps be frustrating to those who really want more information about such topics. I am probably a bit prejudiced, in that I have studied these topics for a while and know of other works that treat them with greater detail, such as James Randi’s Flim Flam!  Readers familiar with psychics and scam-artists (I know, I said that as if they were two different things) will not find a lot of new information here, but it’s still a handy book, and fun. Wiseman’s approach is open and nonjudgmental, not cynical at all, and he succumbs to the urge to slip some humor in here and there. Readers convinced that psychics and ghosts are real, however, might find too many openings to exploit, and remain unconvinced by the demonstrations.

Now, Wiseman is British, and so isn’t as influenced by US culture, which explains something that I regretted not finding in the book: detailed explanations of the bullshit that is regularly seen in popular shows about psychics and ghost hunters. The aforementioned difficulty with finding an American publishing company would have doomed such a book even more, but one is badly needed here. Some aspects are indeed covered, so don’t let me give the wrong impression; ‘impression’ is in fact just the right word here, since among other examples, Wiseman relates the ease in which mysterious encounters can be induced with suggestion. For those open-minded enough to question the accounts, this is enough to invoke some healthy suspicion, but those who believe that EMF meters must produce hard scientific evidence (because it sounds so technical) are not going to have their boat rocked very much.

As an introduction into critical thinking, perception, and skepticism, this book does a great job, proving to be both informative and entertaining, and even adding some useful tools to the arsenal of the public skeptic. Going straight to video clips is indeed a nice bonus, and Wiseman’s narration is engaging and charming. Additionally, there might be a distinct benefit to allowing a group of people to participate in a table-tipping séance, where any believer must be outside of their comfort zone of supportive websites, and instead within an open atmosphere where the labels of “skeptic” and “debunker” are not a constant mantra. It changes the idea of mundane explanations from the abstract to the demonstrated, with the added emphasis of others saying, “Wow, that was easy!” A well-known trait, also related within the book, is how often the responses of those surrounding us can influence our doubts. While it is easy to consider this just another side of the same coin – bowing to group dynamics that either favor or disfavor the idea of supernatural powers is still the same flaw – the idea of doubting or questioning any aspect of belief is a valid start on the road to critical thinking.

As a dedicated skeptic, however, I found the book a little too much like an appetizer rather than a main course, and wanted it to be longer and more detailed. Moreover, I suspect the subtitle, “Why We See What Isn’t There,” is likely to chase off some of the people that need to read it the most, by openly announcing its skeptical approach. I think Wiseman could do a great job with a more in-depth book on the topic, but it might need to be a wee bit sneakier in its approach.

‘Tis autumn, methinks

Al Denelsbeck


I’ve got, believe it or not, three book reviews (well, two and a half) coming up, that I want to space out, but at the moment I have nothing else handy to post. So we’ll go with some recent pics and soft music in the interim. You’ll have to provide the music.

At left, a visitor just across the road late one night, who knew I was there but wasn’t too concerned – it’s possible to exploit this if you try. Just move slowly but casually, since animals respond more to actions than appearance. Let me put it this way: if you were auditioning for a part in a play and asked to “creep up on somebody,” what would it look like? Usually, exactly what most people do when trying to photograph animals. But the animals recognize this too. If instead, you were asked to “blend in with the crowd and not attract attention,” you’d be heading in the right direction. You’d look off into the distance and seem bored or preoccupied, wander aimlessly, and do anything significant only when no one was looking. You got it.

Deer rely on each other to provide cues to danger. Browsing deer have their heads down, wander aimlessly, and look around casually. Deer sensing danger put their heads high and stare, and they know predators not only do the same, they often approach very slowly in straight lines. We can actually imitate a deer and get away with it, despite our lack of big ears and dainty hooves (well, most of us.) Many animals can actually be approached obliquely, at an angle, because that sends the signals of the herd members, not a predator.

This is higher animals, mind you. Moving sideways is often worse for stalking insects, because their vision relies on differences and you may block out a new portion of background with lateral movement, whereas slow direct movement usually does not – think in terms of looking through pebbled glass. And I currently have my own mental image right now after saying, “stalking insects,” one which involves a teeny little rifle and the nerve to stand one’s ground when the rhinoceros beetle charges…

By the way, despite what many might think, the camera strobe meant absolutely nothing to these deer, as with most animals. I do remember a meerkat at the zoo, however, who kept looking at the ceiling when the flash went off, perhaps wondering about an approaching storm…

So much for being nice

Al Denelsbeck

Atheists are often accused of not being nice, for a variety of reasons. One is, we have no outside moral guidance such as scripture, so we obviously have no morals – like morality is this unintuitive concept (hey, some people assume you are as godawful stupid as they are.) Mostly, however, it’s from the idea that we don’t let people slide on concepts like special pleading, arguments that are considered exempt from either support or logic. What’s funny is, in many ways we’ve been way too nice, and I propose that it should stop immediately. There’s such a thing as letting bullshit go on for far too long.

A prime example was recently discussed at EvolutionBlog and Why Evolution Is True. We have, yet again, some religious apologists making a case for biblical scripture being figurative, rather than either metaphorical or literal, and chastising anyone for not taking this into account. And this is simply a variation of every theological argument proposed in the last century. What’s missing, and what is always missing from every assertion of this kind, is any reason whatsoever to believe it. This discussion shouldn’t even be happening, but it is, solely because we’re being too goddamn nice about it.

Let’s pin it down specifically: the bible is wrong. The earth is not flat, the sky is not a ceiling, light comes from stars, humans evolved and are much older than scripture relates, birds did not form from the air and mammals did not form from the dirt, and on and on and on. Every last thing that it states, that was not obvious to the people living at the time, is wrong. That’s a hell of a lousy track record. We have tons of facts to support this rampant inaccuracy too. Tellingly, this is pretty well established now even among most theologians. Which is where the special cases start rolling in.

“But,” the theologians trumpet, “the bible is not meant to be taken literally!” Which is a crying shame, I think, for everyone in the fifteen to twenty centuries before they arrived at this remarkable conclusion, because every religious person did believe it was literal before then. Absolutely no one, not one theologian, proposed that scripture was not a (divinely dictated, mind you) accurate historical document – it was only when we ran into distinct issues with what was related therein that someone suddenly announced the particularly literary devices of “figurative” or “metaphor.”

Now, there are good reasons to use both figurative speech and metaphors, but only when the reader can actually see them for what they are. Mistaking them for fact means they haven’t been used effectively, which makes the bible the least successful piece of literature in history. Perhaps this means that god is indeed perfect, but his editors suck balls? [There’s a straw for the theologians to grasp desperately at, free of charge.] Moreover, figurative and metaphorical writing usually have a particular structure to them, something that easily denotes “fable” but allows the reader to make a comparison to real-world situations. In other words, they’re used for fiction. There aren’t too many historical documents written figuratively, nor any freaking reason to do so. In fact, it’s probably the last thing you would want to do when providing historical information, except for perhaps writing it in Pig Latin.

So, cards on the table and– oh, look! An elephant, right here in the room! Such claims for literary devices within scripture are simply desperate measures to try and rescue a belief system from its fatal flaws. You know it; I know it; they know it. It’s infantile and petty. Why should we have to provide some kind of respect to anyone who proposes such, as if the idea has the least little merit? Why, even, should we listen to any explanation from someone before they have managed to convince all of the other theologians, so there’s at least consistency in the approach? Does it serve some purpose to listen to every insipid guess at why such scripture appears grossly inaccurate, from someone who does not even have the basic honesty to consider that it appears inaccurate because it’s simply made up? Why, pray tell, should atheists feel obligated to be the only ones in the room with an open mind? Is this getting us anywhere?

Just blurting out some excuse isn’t enough. There has to be a reason why such a situation would be not only evident, but preferred. Seeing such aspects as “the fall” and “original sin” as only metaphors means that they do not have the properties they had when literal, which completely trashes their value in the first place. Why should anyone need a savior when the threat isn’t real? Large sections of scripture are intended, so we’re told, to be the operating manual of mankind, yet they’re wishy-washy and vague? Okay, someone may be vapid enough to believe such a premise (or, more likely, too lazy to ever examine it in the first place,) but it’s insulting to expect everyone else to be as stupid. Worse, that we’re not being fair in considering it. I’m funny this way, but I think treating a stupid idea as stupid is the very definition of fair.

A theory is not composed of one stab in the dark. It must explain all of the evidence that we have, and logically produce the results. If that legwork hasn’t been done by the supposed masterbrain forwarding the proposal, there’s no point in wasting any time at all listening to them. We should feel completely free to tell them to go home, do the whole problem, show their work, and above all, convince the majority of chuckleheads who even want to believe scripture in the first place that this is a viable theory, before attempting to put it past those who really couldn’t care less and have absolutely no use for it. Because, and I know this comes as a shock, the world works just fine without mythology, and proving scripture provides value only to those who stand to gain some power or indulgence from it. Claims of moral guidance have had two thousand years to establish themselves as valid – that’s probably a sufficient length of time to see that they’re not working as planned.

Perhaps it’s time to stop being polite by letting every nitwit with a sudden idea blather about literary devices and special rules, and instead require some distinct benefit to be proposed, from the very start. Everything else works that way. I think it’s time for theologians to grow up and take responsibility.

It’s a head-scratcher

Al Denelsbeck1 Comment

Richard Wiseman is very fond of conducting psychological research on his blog, and I have to appreciate his latest. He asks, very simply, that if you had the power to make a child either smart or pleasant (but not both,) which would you choose? I’m going to examine this a little after the jump, so if you prefer to participate unbiased by my thoughts, go there now before proceeding.

Now this is proof

Al Denelsbeck

I’ve had discussions about evidence with a lot of people, mostly in the effort to establish to them that what they were relying on as their own “proof” was questionable at best – more often simply wishful thinking. Confirmation bias is perhaps the worst trait that humans have, allowing us to assure ourselves that we’re right, without all the hassle of actually establishing it. Very efficient, perhaps, but not terribly useful.

Absolutely no one, for instance, has accomplished the level of proof that I have, just yesterday. Forget grilled cheese sandwiches and silly little shrouds; it’s really hard to argue against finding this when I was clearing out a planter from last year:

Shhhh! TV…

Al Denelsbeck

I know it’s short notice, but I just found out about it myself, courtesy of The Manatee. If you get Discovery Channel, there is a new show premiering tonight right after Mythbusters, going by the pseudonym of Penn & Teller Tell A Lie, and it sounds like it should be pretty cool. I’ll be recording it, so if you miss it, come on by and bring popcorn.

But not beer…

See? I knew guilt trips would work…

Cultural blind spot

Al Denelsbeck2 Comments

People who pride themselves on skepticism and critical thinking sometimes get accused of being as guilty as anyone else of bias, and of favoring their existing viewpoint when examining the facts, with arguments such as, “atheism requires just as much faith as religion.” Such accusations are occasionally true (not as often as they’re used, mind you.) Being totally open-minded is hard, partially because it’s much easier to expend the time and effort just once to reach a conclusion, and thereafter we can rely on that conclusion – or so we’d like to think. It occasionally requires some effort to re-examine what we do just to be sure we’re being fair and open-minded.

Sometimes, however, we can fall into the same thoughtless traps, letting ourselves adopt cultural ideas without wondering why, without ever applying any skepticism to them in the first place. One in particular I have seen numerous times, and while the prevalence of it might be a little bit lower in the skeptical ‘community’ than elsewhere, it is by no means viewed with the same jaundiced eye as countless other topics that we consider every day. And that blind spot is alcohol.

I’ll be blunt: alcohol is really fucking stupid. We not only consider a substance that damages the body and alters the brain to be acceptable, we actually glorify it and consider it a necessity. Our culture, not just in the US but throughout most of the world, considers it a standard part of entertaining, the accepted way of winding down after work, the key thing to imbibe when viewing sporting events, or when hanging out with friends, or to toss back at picnics… the list goes on forever. It’s not like it even adds anything – it doesn’t have any real taste, and only contributes a burning sensation to anything it is within. Because of this, we try to disguise it with lots of other flavors, or occasionally engage in testosterone-fueled rituals like tossing back shots just to demonstrate that we won’t cough out caustic substances. We’d consider this stupid if it were something like paint thinner or drain cleaner (well, most of us) but it’s cool when it’s alcohol.

Why?

It helps me to relax. No, it’s not needed “to relax” – the most functional way of doing this is to sit back and, you know, fucking relax. The amount of alcohol in the average beer contributes nothing to this, aside from the fact that it’s also a stimulant – people don’t drink caffeine to “relax,” so how does alcohol count? Yes, eventually it gets down to the depressant part, which is where all the really nasty issues come in. Relaxing is such an easy thing to do, with so many variations available, that alcohol is perhaps the stupidest method of achieving it, short of maybe copious bloodletting. Not to mention that it is occasionally useful to overcome relaxation when we need to be alert or responsive, which the human body can handle just fine when it doesn’t have to cope with depressants.

It lowers my inhibitions. This is said like it’s a good thing. For every part that it makes someone less nervous to speak to the opposite sex or get up on stage, it’s twice as likely to make them less capable of knowing what is inappropriate, much less exhibiting any intelligence at all. The rational part of our brains is there for a reason, and quite frankly, far too many people don’t give it enough exercise in the first place. Taking steps to reduce its effect only results in even stupider actions. It’s hard to understand why we might think we have too much control over our actions.

It helps me have fun. Okay, sit back and think about what “fun” is supposed to mean. First off, if someone can’t have fun without altering their brain function, they need therapy. Second, laughing at something that one wouldn’t find amusing when sober hasn’t got anything to do with having fun – it’s simply triggering disconnected reactions. And it’s really, really hard to accept such an argument when a significant percentage of people who become intoxicated turn into total douchebags, and the only way to believe that they’re not is to be intoxicated yourself when viewing them. Maybe, just maybe, it might be a useful idea to raise the bar on what’s entertaining, rather than lowering one’s expectations to meet it. Just a crazy thought. In fact, it leads one to suspect that network programming in the US exists in its current state only because beer exists.

I need it to forget. I’ve known a few people who considered alcohol some kind of cheap therapy for something that they didn’t like about themselves. Unfortunately, I’ve never actually seen it work this way; they don’t forget, and in fact usually get affected even worse by that whole ‘reduced inhibition’ thing. Forgetting only takes place the next day, but here’s a clue: now everyone else knows, too. It’s one thing to wake up the next morning and not have any recollection of those regrettable things bothering you last night; it’s another entirely to not only inflict them on yourself with even more impact, but to inflict them on others as well, especially when you won’t be in any state where their input might have some positive affect.

And then, there’s the arguments that I really don’t have to expand on:

I like throwing up, violently.

I like falling down without adequate reflexes to protect myself.

I like damaging my car for no good reason.

I like going to bed with someone without exercising any judgment.

I like waking up someplace I don’t recognize.

I like getting ridiculously belligerent, maudlin, or obnoxious.

I like not remembering what I did last night (especially when everyone else does.)

I like drug addiction.

I like jail.

I like vehicular manslaughter.

I like asphyxiating on my own vomit.

The really disturbing thing is, none of these are the slightest bit unknown to anyone – we are intimately familiar with just how many damaging affects alcohol has. We are also intimately familiar with the fact that alcohol lowers our ability to judge what constitutes too much alcohol. The inevitable rejoinder of, “There’s a difference between alcoholism and drinking socially,” completely ignores the fact that there is no actual purpose in drinking socially. The idea that someone can ‘drink responsibly’ is simply an advertising gimmick to hide the fact that alcohol itself is irresponsible. So, again, why?

Everyone else does it. That’s the whole thing right there – the only factor that anyone actually uses in the slightest, despite the rationales that they claim. That’s a really stupid argument for the average person, but amazingly lame for anyone who claims to engage in critical thinking. Yet, I still see it all the time. Skeptical meetups take place more often than not in a bar or pub. Post-convention and post-lecture practices always involve drinks afterwards. Forum posts are still peppered with references to alcohol, even as rewards (“I’ll buy you a beer when we meet.”)

Skeptics would never, ever accept “everyone else does it” for an explanation, for anything. One of the salient features of such thinking is the willingness to buck the trends, and to demonstrate by example how much more useful this is so someone else can do it for themselves. But somehow, we let this one slide by unnoticed, even when it’s so prevalent.

We often talk about religious violence, and how often throughout history relying on faith encourages conflict. We rail against alternative medicine, and the stupidity of folk remedies when we have such an advanced medical system. We denigrate psychics and the emotional turmoils that they put people through. Yet how do these compare against the numbers of alcohol-related injuries and deaths? Well over 30% of fatal motor vehicle accidents in the US are alcohol-related, and the stats for alcohol abuse on campuses are staggering. The medical and liability costs alone present a significant economic impact across the world, and we all pay for those. Even just engaging in pointless rituals every weekend should be enough to embarrass us immeasurably.

We make it a point to try and move society towards better, more rational, more functional practices – we don’t have any issues whatsoever with speaking up. So how does this one get past us?

Also, hang up your cute little Star Trek communicator toy when driving. Seriously, no one wants to die because you can’t shut your fucking mouth for a few minutes.

In the interests of balance

Al Denelsbeck

Part of adopting a critical-thinking cap is being willing to look at all sides of an issue, and seriously consider the arguments counter to the views you hold. Anyone who’s poked around on this blog long enough knows that I have an interest in evolution, so I feel obligated to feature Bobbie-The-Jean’s post of 50 Reasons I Reject Evolution as an alternate viewpoint. I won’t even comment – I’ll let it stand on its own, and allow you to judge for yourself.

Thanks to Ed Yong at Not Exactly Rocket Science for the link. When you get to be popular, people send you stuff to feature. If you don’t like how rarely I post, it’s cause you’re not doing your part!

Oh, it’s okay. I like you anyway…

1 … 259 260 261 262 263 … 289