Software awards scam

Andy Brice decided to test various download sites to see which ones would give awards (and expect a banner to be posted by the developer's website with a link back) to a piece of "software" that consisted only of a text file named "awardmestars" containing the words "this program does nothing at all" repeated several times. He submitted it to 1033 sites, of which 218 sites listed it and 421 rejected it. Of those that accepted it, 11% gave it an award (he's currently at 23 awards):

The truth is that many download sites are just electronic dung heaps, using fake awards, dubious SEO and content misappropriated from PAD files in a pathetic attempt to make a few dollars from Google Adwords. Hopefully these bottom-feeders will be put out of business by the continually improving search engines, leaving only the better sites.

He notes the following sites which wrote him to say to stop wasting their time, indicating that they actually check submissions:

www.filecart.com

www.freshmeat.net

www.download-tipp.de (German)

The author wonders whether download sites that certify software as "100% clean" actually scan submitted software for malware, but says to test it would be unethical. Actually, something very much like his test could be done, using the EICAR antivirus test file instead of his text file.

(Via Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC list.)

Scientology sucks at JavaScript

The Swedish Church of Scientology's online personality test page has a very interesting test for valid zipcodes, phone numbers, and ages, as TheDailyWTF reports. The same checks could each have been done in a single line with an appropriate regular expression.

Vancouver SkeptiCamp

It looks like Vancouver, British Columbia will become the second city to host a SkeptiCamp, which will be the third to occur.

(Previously, previously.)

More "Expelled" coverage worth highlighting

* Scott Hatfield looks at the backgrounds of "Expelled"'s producers.
* Troy Britain and Jon Voisey recount the ever-changing stories of why P.Z. Myers was expelled from "Expelled."
* Ed Brayton shows that "Expelled" co-writer and funder, software multimillionaire Walt Ruloff, lied about Myers' expulsion.
* P.Z. Myers responds to today's press release from "Expelled"'s producers.

And I've been continually updating my original post about P.Z. Myers being refused admittance to the screening of the film; you can find the above links there and many, many more.

"Expelled" producers plant softball questions in screening Q&As?

Amanda Gefter, opinion editor at New Scientist Blogs, attended a screening of "Expelled" and has reported on the Q&A session with producer Mike Mathis that followed. She notes:

He began calling on others in the crowd, who asked friendlier questions. But Maggie and I quickly realised that we'd seen some of these people before - earlier that evening, in fact, working at the movie's registration table. These friendly audience members worked for the film? Had Mathis planted questioners?

Another amusing bit:

Another man in the front row wondered about the film's premise that supporters of ID are being silenced. He pointed out that a recent trial about the teaching of intelligent design held in Dover, Pennsylvania, gave supporters of intelligent design all the time in the world to make their case, but most of the 'leading lights' of ID didn't even show up.

When Mathis was responding, the guy asked another question, and the producer shot back, "How about you let me finish talking?" Then, a security guard for the film approached the calmly seated man and told him, "I may have to ask you to leave."

"Does anyone else see how ironic this is?" the guy asked.

"Shut up!" someone shouted from the back.

And she ends with:

I asked how ID explains the complexity, but he said, "I don't have time for this," and walked away.

Throughout the entire experience, Maggie and I couldn't help feeling that the polarised audience in the theater was a sort of microcosm of America, and let me tell you - it's a scary place. I also couldn't help thinking that the intelligent design folks aren't being silenced, so much as they're being silent. Because when it comes to actually explaining anything, they've got nothing to say.

Read the whole thing.

Stackpole the asteroid

Phoenix Skeptics Executive Director Michael Stackpole now has an asteroid named after him:

On March 23, 2001, David Healy and Jeff Medkeff discovered an asteroid about a mile in diameter, in the asteroid belt on the Mars side of the solar system. It was designated 165612.

Until today.

Now that asteroid is officially known as Stackpole. The International Astronomical Union approved the designation on March 21.

Also getting asteroids named after them: Rebecca Watson (Skepchick), Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy), and P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula).

Very cool!

UPDATE: And Mike Stackpole posts his reaction to learning the news.

An argument in support of Matt Nisbet

I thought I'd try to come up with an argument *for* Nisbet's general position (though I don't support the claims that all publicity is good publicity or that particular people should shut up), and came up with this (posted as a comment on Nisbet's blog):

Suppose U.S. demographics on belief and nonbelief were reversed, so that atheists made up 80%+ and those who explicitly believed in God were about 4-5% of the population (with the difference filled by agnostics, closeted believers, etc.). Suppose further that demographics of believers in science were reversed--with most physicists and biologists being religious believers, who commonly said things like "the Big Bang shows evidence of a beginning of time, started by a creator God," and "the intricate design of biology shows the hand of God."

Presumably Nisbet would tell those religious scientists that they shouldn't say things like that in public, even if they firmly believe them to be true, because they would cause the atheist majority to stop listening to the part that's actually science. And I think he'd have a point. To the extent that Dawkins and Myers go beyond the science into areas like philosophy and normative ethics, they are making non-scientific claims that are not entailed by the scientific evidence (though I happen to agree with them that atheistic views fit much better with the evidence than religious views). A division *can* be drawn, and if your goal is persuasion, *somebody* needs to draw the division and communicate with the audience that otherwise wouldn't listen without including the nonscientific parts that will turn them off.

But, contra Nisbet, that somebody doesn't need to be everybody, or Dawkins or Myers in particular.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm glad that the National Center for Science Education doesn't take a position on theism vs. atheism and involves many religious believers who support the promotion of good science.

Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney have been getting support in their statements from people like intelligent design advocate William Dembski and "Expelled" co-writer Kevin Miller, but I suspect that they would not really agree with Nisbet's position if the demographics were reversed as above--they would be defenders of the religious version of P.Z. Myers. Their position strikes me as opportunistic rather than principled.

Which raises the question--if you support P.Z. Myers' approach and think that it's beneficial for the promotion of science, but you wouldn't support a religious counterpart's approach in the reversal scenario, does that show an inconsistency or lack of principle in your position? I don't think so, and my parenthetical comment is a start of the answer I'd give to why. (I think the underlying causes of the demographics are of relevance, and it's interesting that only Nisbet seems to have tackled that subject in this discussion.) But I'm interested in hearing what others have to say, either way. I suspect that John Lynch and John Wilkins would argue that it does show an inconsistency.

UPDATE (April 2, 2008): James Hrynyshyn at The Island of Doubt ScienceBlog offers a critique of Nisbettian framing. Somehow, I get the impression something's missing here, though. Claiming that scientists are completely objective and trained to be so is to miss the fact that Kuhn, Latour and Woolgar, and the sociologists of science aren't completely wrong about everything. (I'm still a big fan of Philip Kitcher's book, The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions.)

UPDATE (April 3, 2008): John Wilkins offers a defense of "the f-word" in terms of simplification for the purposes of pedagogy.

Expelled screening coming to Phoenix

Although the "Expelled" RSVP page mysteriously dropped all upcoming screenings after the media coverage of P.Z. Myers being barred from a screening in Minnesota, a few cities have appeared on the list again and Phoenix is one of them. This could be a chance to see the film without giving its dishonest producers any money--I've signed up. (Free is the only way I'll bother to see this film.)

The site now explains the cancelled screenings as follows:

Due to unavoidable changes in the travel plans of the producers of “Expelled”, several of our screenings have been canceled or are being rescheduled to a new date or time.

While that may be true, I wonder if it's merely an excuse to drop all of the existing registrants and do more stringent screening of who is allowed to be admitted.

Simon Blackburn on respecting religion

Via Chris Hallquist, an interesting paper by the atheist philosopher Simon Blackburn, titled "Religion and Respect" (24pp. PDF).

Worth noting as an abbreviated summary of the paper is the H.L. Mencken quote referenced by a commenter on Hallquist's post:

"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."

Julia Sweeney on Ben Stein

Julia Sweeney writes at her blog:

Ben Stein once did a Groundling show, an improv show, that I was a part of. I found him to be spectacularly ill-informed and narcissistic and weirdly devoted to his schtick and worst of all, hacky. He didn’t listen to his fellow performers and played everything outward to his friends in the audience who laughed (fake, forced) at every single thing he did. When he became known as a “thinker” – when his public persona became the “smart guy” I was astounded. So this type of film does not come as any surprise.

(Hat tip to James Redekop on the SKEPTIC list.)