new photo blog

i started this blog in 2006, and it's shifted along with my interests through the years. it's been witness to a lot of learning for me...

still, i feel that i need a home for my photography -- so from now on, i'll be posting my pictures on the journal on my reworked website. if you like my photos, you might decide to follow me there!

my first post is here -- check it out!

as for this blog, i'm not sure what will happen. i don't think i'm willing to let it go, and certainly i'll keep it as an archive, but i need some time to figure it out.

for those of you that pop in from time to time, thanks for the visits and encouragement.

Friday, May 22, 2009


on scientific american, michael shermer's why people believe invisible agents control the world.

'souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspirators, and all manner of invisible agents with power and intention are believed to haunt our world and control our lives. why?

read all about it...

1 comment:

  1. The title of this article implies it will provide an explanation of "agenticity", but it does not. I will go so far as to say the entire article is rather poor.

    It begins by talking about the old concept in evolution that it's "better safe than sorry". He has the nerve to say, "which I defined in my December 2008 column", as if its new.

    He then goes on to talk about how our minds "fill in the gaps", when we don't understand. This is also an old concept, which is essentially the root of all spiritual belief. Again he seems to claim credit for this; "a practice I call 'agent­icity'".

    The last paragraph or two (where we would look for a conclusion) simply states the obvious, "such experiences are not substantiated by a body of reliable evidence, which is why they are supernatural and unscientific". It wraps up with a couple more self-coined terms, "supersense" and "supernaturalist".

    The article actually reminds me of how preachers and con artists often function. You begin with something the audience already knows is true, twist it to support something you made up, making it seem unnecessary to provide evidence to the latter.