Anti-Anti-Science Chatbot

Have you ever participated in a near endless online discussion with someone who has their own definition of science and reason?

AND

Do you happen to have some computer programming skills?

If you answered yes to those, it may have occurred to you to write an automated program to automate replies to bad arguments. I have certainly thought about it more than once, but I don't have the right set of programming skills to carry this off very well, nor do I have the time for that sort of fun. Fortunately, someone else does.

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents 

of Anti-Science Nonsense

Nigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.

The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn't happening or humans aren't responsible for it.

Now before this turns into the wrong argument, this post isn't about AGW one way or the other, or any specific point of disagreement. Solving real problems requires than people communicate honestly with one another, and automated replies do nothing to create real communication. Someone will create an "auto-bot" sending automated messages to tie up the "anti-bots" (assuming this hasn't happened already), and anti-anti-bots to tie-up the anti-bots and ... ... you get the idea. Pretty soon people won't be in the loop at all, and people just won't communicate.

The XKCD webcomic recently presented a different take on a similar problem with SPAM. If you have enough bots creating comments, and all comments must pass a filter of being "Constructive and Helpful", you effectively filter out all the people who are not capable of constructive comments as well. MFA.

XKCD: Constructive

In the comments on the Chatbot article, someone starts slinging the words "ad hominem" around without really knowing what it means. This might be another good response to program into the Chatbot.

Ancient Traditions: Poo Flinging

From The K Chronicles

[Hit-Tip-2-Phyrangula] 

Also ran: Reality

From The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life:

When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding, according to the results of an October 2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

Not so surprising really, people are generally afraid of change, of things they do not understand, and of letting go of the familiar. I might have to count myself in that group too.
[Hat Tip Improbable Research]

I Won! I Won!!

Such a contest it was too, since I floated the idea (see first comment) with the intent that creating something like this would be fun. My entry won out among the thousands of submissions and ... well ... maybe it was hundreds ... or at least a dozen ... ok ok, it was just me as far as I know, but I still had fun with it.

From misc

So perhaps I should explain what the heck I'm talking about? I should, but I'm really tired and have to get up very early in the morning, it is going to be short and abrupt:

A new blog - The Thomas Society - by Presbyterian minister Jonathan Weyer and friends, discuss rationality and religion, or maybe religious rationality, something like that (REALLY TIRED), needed an avatar for his blog award, "The Attie".

I'm very happy that Jonathan liked my image. I am happier still to read his blog, because it seems to provide the kind of rational discussion of religion I had given up on ever finding. Jonathan wins too, he's the latest addition to my Scientia Causidicus.

Sense on Health Care Reform

In the spirit of Mark Clifton's essay, I give you the Daily Show Panel on Health Care Reform:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Healther Skelter - Obama Death Panel Debate
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

And there must be reform. Our current system, for all that it does well, is not sustainable, and is increasingly motivated by corporate profit. Among other things, the insurance industry has created a self-interested bureaucracy that is growing like a cancer.

Perhaps a disclaimer is in order: I an employed by a medical school, and arguably benefit when the health care industry make a good profit.

[Update]
My son asked me my opinion on health care reform after watching that Daily Show episode. And in explaining my views to him it occurred to me that medicine has a well established code of ethics, the first of which is "Do No Harm." Insurance coverage is increasing becoming a key part of health care, but the insurance industry is not bound by the same code of ethics. I think a successful reform should mandate that insurance companies operate within similar ethical guidelines.

[update: typo ... grrr]

Ride 'Em Cowboy!

A picture is worth a thousand words.



Lots more pictures at Camels With Hammers.



Video here, or see the tweets.



If you missed what this is all about, see this post at Phyrangula.



My favorite, a picture from Islanddave.






For the record, I am an agnostic, and I applaud the Secular Student Alliance in their efforts to shine the light of reason on creationist silliness.

Donut Holes and Atlas Shrugged

Scott Aaronson writes an interesting critique of everything that Ann Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged is not.

The Compliment of Atlas Shrugged
[at Shtetl-Optimized]




And if you see John Galt, remind him that he still owes me $10.
[Image (most of it) Wikipedia]