I've written a detailed blog post going through the creation of Lightshade page 7 step by step. Click this [link] to see it.

There is a discussion between my lovely fiancee Cristina and I about whether or not we'll be telling our kids about Santa Claus. Cristina is of the opinion that it's part of childhood and that there'll be plenty of years for having their dreams crushed once they grow up. I, on the other hand, am wary of telling my kids something that isn't true, when they're still in the impressionable window of time where they believe anything I tell them.

At some point I told Cristina, if our kids ask about Santa I'll tell them "go ask your mother," but that's not a sustainable position. At some point I'm going to have to answer their questions. Obviously I have a few years before this becomes a problem, but it's something I'm going to have to decide at some point. Obviously I'm not going to tell my kids there's a god, but what of Santa? Nobody over the age of 8 believes in Santa anyway, right? So what's the harm of giving my kids a little childhood innocense and fantasy while they're still young enough to enjoy it?

When I was little, my parents told me about Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and God. I got to a certain age (maybe 6 or 7, who knows), and I remember asking them if Santa really existed. Even to my Santa-loving kiddie brain, the idea of a jolly old man who can fly around the world handing out billions of gifts over the course of a few hours rang false. My parents sat me down and told me I was right: there was no Santa, only Mom and Dad. This taught me a lesson, and it's a valuable lesson I've never forgotten: critical thinking and skepticism is something to be rewarded. Questioning authority is a GOOD thing.

At this point I used that same logic and started applying it to the other fanciful things children my age believed in. There is no Santa, hence there is no Tooth Fairy, hence there is no Easter Bunny, hence there is no God. As I got older that list lengthened. There are no ghosts. There are no monsters. There are no aliens (at least, none that are in contact with humans). There is no chi, there are no auras, there are no psychics, there is no alternative medicine.

But as the list lengthened of things that aren't, so did the list of things that are. Black holes are real, and cool! So are quantum mechanics, which make absolutely no sense to my mammal brain but are cool nonetheless. Evolution is real, and fascinating. There are planets around other stars. Some are Earth-sized. Some could have life. There are robots on Mars. There are cameras in orbit around Saturn. There are human footprints on the Moon.

I want that for my kids! I want them to love science as much as I do, and to be as fascinated by the real and the amazing as I am, and reject the fake. Why waste time with astrology when astronomy is so much cooler, and real? Why bother with intelligent design when evolution is infinitely more interesting to learn about, because it's actually true?

But... maybe they need to arrive at that on their own. Maybe they need to flex those critical thinking muscles like I did, and figure this stuff out on their own. And maybe I'm just overthinking all of this. Santa... no Santa..... sigh.

Go ask your mother.

Today I was reading Skeptical Inquirer, which is a magazine I've never picked up before. I usually read Skeptic Magazine, but the articles in this one were great. This issue's feature was on Skepticism 2.0, which involves the newer generation of skeptics (i.e., people my age) using new technology such as blogging and podcasting to spread skepticism. Hey, that's what I'm trying to do! This is relevant to my interests, as the kids and lolcats are known to proclaim.

A few decades ago, the skepticism movement was confined to larger organizations such as CSICOP (the Center for Skeptical somesuch or whatever, don't make me look up what it stands for) and generally people got their skeptical news and info from mailing lists and newsletters, and magazines such as Skeptic. These days there's a huge and growing grassroots movement to spread skepticism, and younger people like myself are getting involved more and more as it becomes cheaper and easier to get info out there to the masses.

It's nice to be part of a movement.

I got a comment on my last blog, and one of the topics that came up was that of conspiracy theories. The commenter expressed that he was a believer in alternative medicine, and used a conspiracy theory as reasoning. The idea was that "Big Pharma" (meaning pharmaceutical companies) somehow suppress studies that show alternative medicine works. This is incredibly weak logic, but somehow this argument pops up a lot when talking to alternative medicine believers. However, the conspiracy theory argument is worthless when debating anything. Why? Let's discuss, shall we?

First of all, the conspiracy theory is a Hail Mary pass. I'm not a football guy, but I've heard this analogy used before in regard to other things, and it works here. A Hail Mary pass is a move made in desperation; when it appears that you're going to lose the game and you have nothing left to lose, a Hail Mary pass has very little chance of succeeding, but you might as well try. When someone brings up a conspiracy theory in a debate, it's like saying "I have no evidence to back up my position, so I will now proceed to make some shit up and hope you buy it."

Which is not to say they're LYING, necessarily, I think most conspiracy theorists believe in what they're saying, it's just that they have no logical reason to believe it. Look, I get it. I understand people like to root for the underdog, and they like to feel like they have access to knowledge that other people don't, or are being kept from. I think it's a big reason why people believe in alternative medicine, they want to feel like they've figured out how to cheaply and naturally keep themselves healthy when everyone else is paying exorbitant prices to the evil pharmaceutical corporations that want to keep them sick and keep them buying medicine. The trouble is, it's all bullshit.

How do I know? Because if any conspiracy theory had any OUNCE of credibility to it, it would be MAJOR MAJOR news. Every single newspaper and media outlet across the globe would be talking about it. And whoever uncovered it would win the Pulitzer prize, the Nobel prize, book deals, etc. And I'm talking about not just the Big Pharma conspiracy, but about a number of bullshit theories. Take your pick: UFOs have been coming to Earth for decades, but the government keeps them under wraps; 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration; John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the government... a lot of these have to do with the government now that I think about it.

So the FDA, or "Big Pharma" (how I hate that term), or whoever, suppresses data proving that alternative medicine works? Let's examine this for a minute. Science is not something that exists only in America, funded solely by the American government or American corporations. It's EVERYWHERE. Scientists all over the world, in every country, perform tests every single day. Whether they're under the employ of giant corporations, or universities, or the government, or even if they're just students or amateur scientists, every single scientist has one goal in mind: revolutionizing their field. It's how you get awards, it's how you get published, it's how you become remembered after you die. We remember Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein and Galileo Galilei because they revolutionized science, not because they maintained the status quo. There IS no status quo in science, and scientists all over the world are trying every day to overturn previously accepted scientific theories.

The fact is, if a SINGLE credible study was published, anywhere in the world, that supported alternative medicine, it would be MASSIVE worldwide news. It would appear in every scientific journal, every newspaper, it would be HUGE. And if alternative medicine worked, there would be these kinds of studies published EVERY DAY.

No government can suppress this stuff. No corporation can do it, no single organization or entity can suppress real science. It just can't be done, especially not in the modern world of the Internet and 24-hour news stations. The Catholic church tried for centuries to suppress science, but it still got out. That's how we know the Earth revolves around the sun. That's how we know Evolution is a fact. That's how we know the Earth is 4.5 billion years instead of 6,000. Real science cannot be suppressed for long.

So remember next time someone tells you a conspiracy theory: it's a Hail Mary pass. They got nothin'.

A few months ago, I was at my mom's house when somehow the topic of discussion got on Jenny McCarthy and her anti-vaccination nonsense. If you've been living on Mars for the last few years, the story in a nutshell is that some doctor [link] found a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, until it was discovered that he faked his data and there never was any link between the two. Numerous testing done since his initial study report no link between vaccinations and autism, yet despite this certain members of the media [link] went nuts and started spreading the idea that the two were somehow causally linked, resulting in frightened parents refusing to vaccinate their children, which in turn resulted in the rise of mumps and measles and other completely preventable diseases, and even deaths.

One of the biggest opponents of vaccines in America these days is Playboy centerfold Jenny McCarthy [link] , who maintains that her son developed autism as a result of vaccinations, but that she cured his autism by giving him a wheat and dairy-free diet.

As unbelievable as her story is, the more unbelievable thing is that a lot of people are buying it.

But that's not what I'm going to talk about here. I was at my mom's house and Jenny came up in conversation. I mentioned she was anti-vaccination, and my mom didn't know what I was talking about. I gave her the quick run-down, and she said something that blew my mind. She said "well, honey, everyone's entitled to their opinion."

I love my mom with all my heart, but I couldn't believe something like that could be said by an otherwise intelligent adult. I said something like "yeah, but not when they're wrong," and dropped the subject, but it's taken me a little pondering to figure out exactly why she's wrong. Surely everyone IS entitled to their opinion, right? And I'm pro-freedom; I'm totally in favor of everyone's right to believe every bit of insanity they want to believe in. So why CAN'T Jenny McCarthy believe what she wants?

Here's why. Because there's a difference between fact and opinion. Jenny McCarthy saying that her child came down with autism after getting a vaccination is not an opinion. It's a statement of fact; only it's not a true fact, it's provably wrong.

Opinions are one thing, facts are totally another. If I say I believe "Abbey Road" is the best Beatles album, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Someone else can make a very good case for why they believe "Sgt. Pepper" is a more cohesive album, but it's not going to change my opinion about "Abbey Road" if that's the album I personally prefer.

But if I said that the world is 6,000 years old? That's a statement of fact, and it's demonstrably false. I'm entitled to believe the world is 6,000 years old, but everyone else is completely entitled to tell me that I'm wrong, and should do so.

Jenny McCarthy's son did not get autism from a vaccine. Alternative medicine does not work. Intelligent design is not a viable alternative to the theory of evolution. These are not opinions, they are statements of fact. Let's stop allowing people to spout bullshit and treat them like it's their opinion that they're entitled to.