Just to give you some hints, though, the topics I will be discussing include education, parenting, women, sex, math/statistics, psychology, shopping, and reality (NOT). Sounds like fun, no?

This year will be extra special because I will have the opportunity to meet Will Phillips and shake his hand. If that name does not ring a bell, I will let Heidi Anderson tell you who he is.

In 2009, Will Phillips, showed more courage at age 10 than many adults do their whole lives. After being raised to believe in the inherent worth of each person by his parents, Laura and Jay Phillips, in the small town of West Fork, Arkansas, Will put his values into practice when he refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance until gays could marry; or in his words, until “there truly is liberty and justice for all!”

In my opinion, Will is the kind of child who deserves to be recognized for his creativity and compassion, and he has been. What’s more, he’s fun and geeky, which is apparent in this speech he gave at the GLAAD Media Awards:

You can recognize Will, too, and give him an 11th birthday party he will never forget.

Heidi has set up a fund to raise the money to send Will to Dragon*Con and plans are in process to make sure he has a great time while he is there. The goal is still $700 away, but every dollar gets her closer. If you can spare a few, please consider chipping in by clicking the link on this page or this one, [EDIT: or click on the picture of Will above]. If you cannot, please share the link(s) on Facebook or Twitter so that others have the opportunity to help.

I strongly believe that rewarding these kinds of efforts is the key to our future.

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. While I Was Sleeping

In my mini-review of The Amazing Meeting 8 I mentioned that there were two very dark spots in an otherwise amazing (sometimes the word just fits) weekend.

I was not ready to discuss these in detail, but when I stumbled over this blog post by Blag Hag Jen McCreight, I felt that at least one should be discussed and I would like to do so through the filter of one of the best talks of the weekend, given by Massimo Pigliucci.

McCreight addresses the question of sexism, saying:

The one annoying thing I saw was the perpetuation of the Sexy vs. Smart binary in talks.

I saw none of this in talks. She gives two examples: Michael Shermer’s talk included a Los Angeles County Fair commercial from a series which has been shown for several years now.

This series is meant to portray a stereotype of geography, not the attractiveness (or the gender; they could have easily used the dumb surfer boy image) of the actors. I can understand this getting past much of the audience. Those of us who live in southern California and have seen the entire series likely take it for granted.

That said, the video seemed to have little to do with the rest of his talk and seemed a bit too “look at these dumb people”; I cringed myself when I saw it. So this is probably worthy of discussion, but I do not think it is a strong example of associating appearance with intelligence.

McCreight also accuses SkepDoc Harriet Hall of sexism:

Whenever she mentioned Jenny McCarthy in her talk as an example of someone saying something stupid (which Jenny McCarthy certainly does often), she would include a picture of her bending over in a bikini or some other scantily clad outfit. Why was this effective? Why not use a photo of Jenny McCarthy in a suit?

Why is it sexist for Harriet Hall to show Jenny McCarthy, a former model and Playboy bunny, in a swimsuit rather than something more modest? If McCarthy were, say, a cashier by trade, the image of her in a cashier’s smock would have been just as appropriate, no?

The purpose of the images was to show that frightened parents will favor the message of someone entirely unqualified to give medical advice over their MD. McCarthy is qualified to have her picture taken and did so “scantily clad” for years.

McCreight also repeated something central to her own talk (which I am not ready to review in its entirety):

The stereotype goes that women can sexy/attractive/beautiful and stupid/ditsy/unscientific, or they can be smart/witty/scientific and frumpy/plain/ugly. This myth annoys the hell out of me, especially because it’s so common.

This is where I put on my “Massimo” glasses and discuss expertise.

Media stereotypes are not “myths”. In fact, they do not necessarily reflect what individuals in society actually believe. These definitions are important, especially when one’s argument relies on them. When you make statements about one thing (media portrayals), but you are really talking about something else (behaviors and attitudes), you need to prepared to cite sources which clearly show that these are interchangeable; the distinction matters.

The truth is that attractive persons are more likely to be associated with an occupation that is held in high regard, including scientist, than less attractive persons. That’s the halo effect. It is very well-established in the psychological literature and not limited to men or even human beings.

Some of the points Jen made are valid criticisms, but the valid criticisms are overshadowed by vague, uninformed statements. Many of the points rely on whether her general claims of “this is what people think” are accurate. She does not cite sources which show that she knows “what people think”, nor is her background in psychology or a related field, which might provide some evidence of expertise in this area.

“I’ve seen it” is not evidence, something a young scientist in training (and many older, experienced ones) must constantly remind themselves in order to overcome our brain’s desire to think that it is.

McCreight defended TAM organizers by repeating a statement made many times by Jeff Wagg about speakers at TAM7:

Last year, 8 women were invited to speak at TAM. 2 said yes. 1 of those women had to cancel.

I have never heard Jeff compare this with the number of men who were invited and how many of those accepted or canceled. Without that comparison, this information tells us nothing.

Frankly, however, I care much more about the quality of the speakers than their gender, but given the number of high-quality speakers available who are women and the ratio seen at other events, the lopsidedness at TAM in past years was a bit disturbing. I thought they did a great job all around this year and didn’t need to be defended.

I thought the sex workshop was on Sunday…

Regarding the “Feminism & Skepticism Workshop”, although I am not the person she quoted, I was sitting directly behind McCreight and walked out when “Angry Vagina Craft Time” was announced.

My take? There are three criteria which should have been met for a topic or activity to be included in this workshop:

1. It is a feminism issue.
2. It is a skepticism issue.
3. The discussion is well-researched and well reasoned.

Although there were definitely some good points, much of what was discussed prior to “Angry Vagina Craft Time” failed to meet one or more of these criteria, especially #3.

Asking people to make vaginas (term used loosely) out of felt and googlie eyes did not make me uncomfortable, but infantilizing women’s genitalia and calling it “light humor” made me a bit angry – yes, I had an angry vagina. And an angry jaw. It could have made many women very uncomfortable, yet it served no purpose that I could see short of a “fuck you” to those who have criticized the workshop’s organizers in the past for such things.

I left because I had seen enough.

Overall, in regard to sexism at TAM8, I thought this year was a huge improvement over last. I attribute this largely to a different mix of attendees. I really wish that friends who were turned off by the culture last year could have experienced it. Perhaps they would see the community differently.

To sum up my experiences and in answer to McCreight’s questions: There were exactly two times during the weekend when I was offended. That workshop was one of them. Ironic, isn’t it?

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!
3. Embrace Your Skepticality by Speaking Beyond… Or Something Like That

I am still recovering, catching up, and formulating thoughts on The Amazing Meeting 8. In the meantime, I thought I would give you a summation and a few personal highlights.

Before I do that, here is a link to the materials promised in the Skepticism in the Classroom workshop Thursday. Apparently, there has been some trouble getting to this page, but the link should do it for you.

Summary

Wow.

Someone hit the “reset” button on the community’s culture.

There were a few – very few – dark spots in it for me, but these were grossly overshadowed by positives. I will discuss the details in posts to follow. It is actually difficult to pull out “highlights” from the program, because it was so packed with good work, so I will probably take some time and break it up into several posts.

In the meantime, I do not want much more time to go by without making a strong statement about a few highly influential (to me) talks which the speakers must have known would hit a nerve with some.

Obviously, none of these people wrote their talks for my benefit, but it seems appropriate to thank them. I did so from the stage, but given that I was terribly nervous and trying to focus on the talk I was about to give, I do not know if my gratitude came across. So, here it is again.

Thank you Phil Plait, for your much-needed, humble, all-encompassing call for thinking about our goal and the impact of our words before we say/write them. Although other talks explained the sources and influences of hubris, Phil’s was a heartfelt call for reflection which brought tears (good ones) to many eyes in the audience. I spoke to several people who admitted to fleeting thoughts that they had prompted this speech somehow and I could not help feeling this way myself. That is testimony to the timeliness of it. This talk set the entire tone for the conference and I know it was not an easy one to give (it was not an easy one to hear, either), so if you appreciated it as much as I did, send him a note of thanks. Bravo.

Thank you to Massimo Pigliucci, for defining “Skeptic” and discussing the need to think about what, exactly, we are each qualified to say publicly and whether we frame opinions as opinions, not facts. He often steps out on a limb, apparently without looking down, but this was so timely and appropriate that it stood out. There were a few wet eyes during his talk as well.

Thank you to The Amazing Randi for acknowledging the vision and contributions of Paul Kurtz. In doing so, Randi endorsed a tempered approach to dealing with our challenges.

Thank you to D.J. Grothe. Over the course of the weekend, he managed to negotiate from nearly every founder or highly-influential speaker a definition of “Skepticism” and/or a clear goal for the interviewee’s organization. I cannot help but be reminded of his talk at NECSS, which should serve as a primer for anyone interested in this movement. Randi, for example, limited the mission of the JREF to issues surrounding testable claims, something I strongly believe should be adhered to by skeptic organizations. I believe that organizations should remain focused and that critical thinking is the key to change (not promoting conclusions).

The Best Part of TAM8…

…was sharing the experience with my son. Connor is 12 years old, the minimum age for The Amazing Meeting, and has become more interested in this work over the past year. It was my hope that TAM8 would give him something to look forward to; it was. I hoped it would inspire him; it did (a little too much, actually). I hoped it would give him a passion and a mission; it did.

At one point I found him with The Amazing Randi, who gave him a demonstration in conjuring. If anyone has video of this, please contact me. I did not even get a good picture myself, unfortunately.

photo by D.J. Grothe

It seems this started when Connor walked right up to him and said, “Mr. Randi, I would like to give a talk at TAM next year.”

Of course, Connor received a lesson from me later on the importance of not getting ahead of himself. I also discussed the faux pas of going over D.J. Grothe’s head and the fact that being a kid may get him more attention than the average TAM-goer, but it does not give him special license to grab the megaphone.

However, I must note that I am secretly thrilled that he is so committed.

Other Personal Highlights

• …knowing that Richard Dawkins attended the “Skepticism in the Classroom” workshop that I did with Daniel Loxton and Matt Lowry (moderated by Michael Blanford) mid-day Thursday AND the “Skepticism and Sexuality” workshop that Heidi Anderson and others gave on Sunday afternoon. I find speakers so much more sincere when I know that they are interested in what others in their field are doing and saying.
• …hearing Connor, completely on his own, finagle the last question to Dawkins and Randi during the reception Thursday night. He asked a great one for those new to this movement, too. [Just a note: I think it was a mistake to plan a "show" during a social hour. We were asked to shut up so that the show could be heard. That said, it wasn't a bad show, just not a great way to do it (live and learn, JREF/CSI/Skeptics Society).]


Matt and Dylan in the registration line

• …watching Woo Fighter, Dylan Keenberg, take pages and pages of notes, soaking in the culture and inspiration of the meeting. Matthew Newton, who found funding at the last minute, was also able to attend and despite missing a little bit of the World Cup, thoroughly enjoyed the talks. I think they both understand now why I set TAM attendance as a goal for new members.
• …getting a new Skeptics Society shirt – one that will not be relegated to the “nightshirt” stack. Very cool design and cut!



• …watching friends eat their first musk sticks. This Australian “treat” found its way around the meeting, mostly by being carried by the charming Richard Saunders. I will note that these were the less popular of the treats Kylie Sturgess sent for the crowd at the Skepticality Speaking Beyond BS podcast recording. I often wonder if the market for these things is entirely as traveling Australians’ hospitality gifts. To me, they are shocking examples of Australians’ need to rebel food-wise. Most people say they taste like shaving cream, but I’d say perfume. Yuk.
• …the satisfying and fun conversation Thursday night, both during and after the podcast recording, which itself was a thrill. So much awesomeness in one room should have caused world peace to break out.
  



• …watching, and taking part in, that moment of recognition when one realizes that they are face to face with a friend they have only talked to online thus far. This was especially entertaining in the bar on Wednesday night, before anyone had name tags.
• …good times sharing frustrations, victories, and strategies with good people. You all know who you are…
• …seeing my friend Ani Aharonian’s face when she realized that Genie Scott was there.
• …hearing two people who might otherwise be called “crackpots” treated with respect and open minds by real, rational, reasonable Skeptics.
• …introducing my son to people I call friends and watching him collect signatures in books he has read or hopes to read soon.
• …being mistaken for Naomi Baker after the Grassroots Workshop. What a compliment! Next year, we will have to start a doppelganger gallery: Cheryl Hebert/Desiree Schell, Dylan Keenberg/Penn Jillette, me/Naomi Baker – who else?
• …looking into the audience when the mostly-filled room was so quiet during my Sunday talk that I had no idea if they were listening intently or bored silly and seeing Donald Prothero‘s big smile.
• …seeing Daniel Loxton, who has taken some heat in the community lately for saying how great it would be if we at least tried to be nice to each other, smile like he just opened the BEST BIRTHDAY PRESENTS EVAH!
• …coming down off the stage on Sunday and being immediately flanked by K.O. Myers, who could not wait to tell me his brilliant idea. It reminded me that I have the most amazing friends on the planet.
• …getting say, “I told you so” to a number of people for different reasons. Because I am always right. This is a supernatural gift. I shall apply for the challenge next year.

Related posts:

1. This Stuff is Not Easy!
2. Embrace Your Skepticality by Speaking Beyond… Or Something Like That
3. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8

The favored laboratory of anti-vaccine practitioners and the “autism biomed” movement, a commercial laboratory known as Doctor’s Data is suing Steve Barrett, the man who maintains the excellent resource Quackwatch, for criticism Dr. Barrett leveled against it, criticism that Doctor’s Data richly deserved (in my opinion, of course).

Fighting these battles is extremely expensive and no legal defense funds exist for grassroots activists. Please blog about this to raise awareness and donate what you can to Quackwatch to help Dr. Barrett defend his right (and our rights) to tell the truth.

No related posts.

Here are some of my personal highlights:

Thursday, July 8th

Friday & Saturday, July 9th & 10th

Sunday, July 11th

Woo Fighters is still collecting donations to send four worthy students to TAM8. As of this writing, I have secured the registration for one student. Three more are waiting patiently, hoping that enough people donate small amounts, they will add up. Please help if you can.

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!
3. Irony, Hypocrisy, and Being Human

It’s the middle of conference season. This year I have not increased the number of conferences I am attending, but I have stepped up my involvement a bit. As I do every year, I attended the Annual Convention of the Western Psychological Association and, although I had a terrible trip, my students were great, the research we presented was interesting, and I saw some amazing wildlife.

Coming up soon is The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 (TAM8), the annual gathering hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation – this year the Skeptics Society and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) will co-sponsor. I usually like to relax and watch the talks at TAM, but this year I’ve volunteered to help out with the Teacher’s Workshop on Thursday as part of my “duties” on a general advisory panel for JREF. To cap off the trip, I will be giving a talk during the Sunday morning session titled Skepticism as a Gateway to Science Literacy.

Since last fall I have been hoping to bring some students to TAM8 in hopes that they will discover how important, fulfilling, and fun activism can be. This meeting is the largest of its kind and very enriching for a skeptic new to the cause. It is a fantastic place to network and bond with like-minded people. However, we got a late start getting Woo Fighters off the ground and fund raising has been difficult. Students rarely have the funds to attend multiple conferences and they must attend academic ones as part of their education. So, we are asking for your help. Every little bit counts. Some very dedicated people have been extremely generous, and I am hoping that the greater community will show us that you understand the need to promote the efforts of young, qualified scientists to become tomorrow’s science communicators by donating $5 (more is welcome and needed, of course, but the gesture is significant itself) to helping these students get there this year. I think that if we can get them off the ground, they can take it from here.

Read the post, or just click on the button at the bottom of this post to help out.

Finally, I will be participating in Skeptrack at Dragon*Con again this year. The tentative schedule looks like a winner with panels on Shopping Skeptically, Skeptical Sex, and the usual science stuff. I am particularly looking forward to participating as a student in Ben Radford’s workshop on investigating paranormal phenomena.

I hope to see some of you at TAM8 or Dragon*Con this year. Please say hi if you see me!

Related posts:

1. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8
2. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
3. Embrace Your Skepticality by Speaking Beyond… Or Something Like That

Originally posted on February 16, 2009

NCCAM = National Scam

Reading the blogs of others I have noticed that one entry often sparks another and chains of commentary develop. I now understand how this works; one quickly has more to say than is appropriate for a simple comment when a hot topic is discussed. This, IMO, is a great way to converse and spread the word about important issues that warrant wide attention. Alternative medicine is certainly one of these areas and a recent post stirred my anger.

Today I read a blog entry by Z at It’s the Thought That Counts which was apparently inspired by yet another blog entry by Orac, at Respectful Insolence. Z’s links then led me to some findings of my own that I feel compelled to share.

When I first heard of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I thought it was a good thing. I believed that an agency governed by the NIH would be responsible. I believed that good science which investigated the claims made by these snake oil salesmen would be conducted, and public education regarding these products would be the result. I now think that I was wrong. I am angry that my tax dollars are being spent propagating propaganda and ignorance, spreading BS and allowing swindlers make money off of the American public.

What changed my mind? Well, you can read about where the money is going and about the types of studies funded by the agency by going to the blog entries I mentioned. In the meantime, let me tell you about the “educational information” being produced by this government agency.

One of the NCCAM’s four “primary areas of focus” is “sharing news and information”. Their website describes their approach to this task:

We provide timely and accurate information about CAM research in many ways, such as through our Web site, our information clearinghouse, fact sheets, Distinguished Lecture Series, continuing medical education programs, and publication databases.

This got me thinking. What information are they sharing? Are they sharing, in their fact sheets for example, the reason why these things are classified as “complementary” or “alternative” to conventional medicine? The difference is simple to explain – medicine that has been shown through scientific evidence to the safe and effective is conventional medicine. Everything else is “alternative” (it is considered “complementary” when conventional medicine is also used). When and if evidence suggests that any treatment is effective, it is no longer considered “alternative”; it becomes “conventional”.

Let me note, however, that some of the dictionary definitions are inaccurate. For example, American Heritage Dictionary defines “alternative medicine” as:

A variety of therapeutic or preventive health care practices, such as homeopathy, naturopathy, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, that do not follow generally accepted medical methods and may not have a scientific explanation for their effectiveness.

which is misleading in that it clearly implies that these practices are effective; we just don’t know why. That’s simply untrue. There are many conventional medicines and practices that are effective, but lack strong scientific explanations for their effectiveness. The causal agents in the successful treatment of rosacea with antibiotics and many of the uses of antidepressants are not well understood, but we hardly classify them as “alternative”. That term is reserved for unproven treatments of any kind.

This definition makes one of the NCCAM other primary areas of focus utterly moot. “Supporting integration of proven CAM therapies” (never mind that they do not state what they mean by integration) is described as follows:

Our research helps the public and health professionals understand which CAM therapies have been proven to be safe and effective.

Um, by definition this statement is self-contradictory.

So, which of these therapies are they claiming are safe and effective (and should then be reclassified)? To find out, I took a look at some of their fact sheets.

Under “Herbs at a Glance”, I started with the first entry that is not considered conventional, Astragalus.

The fact sheet includes a section titled What the Science Says. There were three bullet points:

• The evidence for using astragalus for any health condition is limited. Results from small or preliminary studies suggest that astragalus may benefit heart function and help the immune system fight infections.
• A few studies have shown potential benefits for using astragalus—in combination with another herb, glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum)—as an adjunctive therapy for cancer. In general, however, these studies were not well designed.
• NCCAM-funded investigators are studying the effects of astragalus on the body, particularly on the immune system.

The third point hardly tells anyone “what the science says”. The first two, however, immediately threw up red flags. Despite the careful wording (I may sprout wings and fly, too), it is misleading at best. Where did this information come from?

The fact sheet sites three sources, none of which are research reports published in peer-reviewed academic journals:

• Astragalus. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database Web site. Accessed May 10, 2007.
• Astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus). Natural Standard Database Web site. Accessed May 9, 2007.
• Upton R. Astragalus. In: Coates P, Blackman M, Cragg G, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2005:25–30.

Could these be biased? Maybe a little?

Okay, let’s try another. How about feverfew?

Under What the Science Says we find:

• Some research suggests that feverfew may be helpful in preventing migraine headaches; however, results have been mixed and more evidence is needed from well-designed studies.
• One study found that feverfew did not reduce rheumatoid arthritis symptoms in women whose symptoms did not respond to conventional medicines. It has been suggested that feverfew could help those with milder symptoms.
• There is not enough evidence available to assess whether feverfew is beneficial for other uses.
• NCCAM-funded researchers are studying ways to standardize feverfew; that is, to prepare it in a consistent manner. Standardized preparations could be used in future studies of feverfew for migraines.

And again the sources cited fall far short of reliable or reputable:

• Awang DVC, Leung AY. Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium). In: Coates P, Blackman M, Cragg G, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of Dietary Supplements. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2005:211–217.
• Feverfew. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database Web site. Accessed on July 5, 2007.
• Feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium L. Schultz-Bip.). Natural Standard Database Web site. Accessed on July 3, 2007.

Can you imagine citing resources like these to support your theory in application for a research grant? Or in a scientific journal article? Any otherwise respectable researcher would lose all credibility.

The fact sheet on Echinacea presents the findings as mixed:

• Study results are mixed on whether echinacea effectively treats colds or flu. For example, two NCCAM-funded studies did not find a benefit from echinacea, either as Echinacea purpurea fresh-pressed juice for treating colds in children, or as an unrefined mixture of Echinacea angustifolia root and Echinacea purpurea root and herb in adults. However, other studies have shown that echinacea may be beneficial in treating upper respiratory infections.
• Most studies to date indicate that echinacea does not appear to prevent colds or other infections.
• NCCAM is continuing to support the study of echinacea for the treatment of upper respiratory infections. NCCAM is also studying echinacea for its potential effects on the immune system.

And, finally, it actually cited two peer-reviewed research reports among the six sources. However, both reported null findings (must be those pesky studies they funded, so they had to cite them). One published in JAMA also noted an increased risk of rash and children ages 2 through 11. Findings are not “mixed” when quality research agrees and one must consult pseudoscience or research of questionable quality to find disagreement.

What I found next was comical. I followed a link to “10 things to know about evaluating medical resources on the Web“. I’ll let you peruse that on your own.

The NCCAM’s annual budget has been around $120 million for the past few years and, although I do not know how funds in the new “stimulus package” will be distributed (does anyone?), there is money for science and it seems unlikely that the NCCAM’s budget will be cut.

I wonder about NCCAM’s history and the guise under which it was built. If a special interest lobby – namely the dietary supplement and CAM industry – was primarily responsible for its birth, then it is no wonder that the only thing this agency has accomplished so far is lending false credence to the products of that industry.

Related posts:

1. There is No Debate Over Evolution

Maria Walters: Rational. Compassionate. Not an asshole.

Read what she has to say about hypocrisy and self-righteousness in skepticism.

For my part, I’d like to say that I know *fundamental christians* whom I judge to be good critical thinkers. Now, I am totally baffled that they are able to maintain that particular faith, but I can’t say that it is “selective rationalism” because we don’t discuss it at length.

There are at least two issues here, but I would like to discuss the specific case of Hal Bidlack, whose name in a tweet prompted responses which let to Maria’s post.

What Maria notes about Hal Bidlack is that he has expressed a belief which, by his own admission, was not arrived at through reason. This is not hypocritical. What is hypocritical is to label him an enemy of skepticism, yet blow off Penn Jillette‘s years of AGW denial – something he admitted was not founded on reason and I believe currently stands at “I don’t know”. These are not sacred cows. These are areas these particular skeptics choose not to overanalyze.

We are not obligated to apply reason to every aspect of our lives.

We are obligated to admit when we do not apply reason. We are obligated to refrain from arguing about what we have not reasoned. We are obligated to ensure that holding onto that belief is not harmful to others (by not acting on it). We are not obligated to force ourselves to follow every argument to its conclusion just because most of our friends do.

A truly rational person understands that critical evaluation of a claim or belief carries the risk that the conclusion will be unpleasant. Not all truths are pretty.

Some of us would rather know the truth, regardless of how unpleasant it is. Others find so much comfort in a belief which may or may not be accurate that giving it up is not worth the risk. Why don’t they have the right to hang onto them without being called a hypocrite?

Just sayin’.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Skepticism: A Tutorial
2. There is No Debate Over Evolution
3. Irony, Hypocrisy, and Being Human

A recent event not included in my last post, but one about which I am very excited, is the release of Daniel Loxton’s book Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be. It is a book aimed at children ages 8 to 13 and covers the basics of natural selection and speciation in the most clear and concise language I have found on this topic so far.

Perhaps I am a little biased as I expected a great book, given his track record writing-wise, but even I was surprised by the clarity and creativity of some of the examples. My 9 year old son was looking forward to the illustrations. Daniel sometimes shares his works in progress and both of my art-minded kids (their father’s influence) think that Mr. Loxton is awesomrific. Of course the illustrations did not disappoint, but he was even more intrigued by the discussion of natural selection in a grove of trees. I thought my son understood natural selection quite well, but it seems that his 3rd grade lessons focused on biodiversity and the results of selection.

I was impressed with a discussion of the often-forgotten limits and compromises in evolution, but that is a lesson my boys learned quite well from playing Spore™.

My 12 year old son, who is obsessed with man’s origins, wrote a review. Here it is, unedited:

Evolution: How We and All living Things Came to Be is a amazing book. It puts a difficult concept into easy to understand words. Digital art recreates dinasaurs, fossils, and prehistoric creatures right on the page. Analogies, comparisons, and visualization helps a young reader grasp this concept. This book directly tackles questions about evolution. In conclusion, cold hard facts and mind-boggling illustrations laced with superior analogies makes Evolution: How We and All living Things Came to Be a must for the young scientist!

It should be obvious by now that we love the book and highly recommend it. It doesn’t sound like something that skeptics would disagree about, does it?

Skepticism activists and advocates disagree often and there are a few topics guaranteed to heat up the room. The most volatile is libertarian-style fiscal conservativism, but a close second is the mix of skepticism with atheism. This is a multi-faceted issue with several questions whose answers are debated, the most contentious of which is, “Can science address questions of faith?”

This seems like a simple question, but it is it not. It is really a philosophical question and a rather complicated one. As such, I do not plan to answer it in this post. What I will say is that insulting people of faith by calling them irrational (what they’ll hear: stupid) is a great way to get their attention, but it would likely ensure that efforts to convince them of the merits of critical thinking are wasted. I also believe that the most important property of science is its lack of arrogance, the open-mindedness that comes with the knowledge that our conclusions depend on the infallibility of a few fundamental principles we assume are true. To deny that 100% certainty is not possible is dogmatic, unreasonable, and anti-science. For that reason, my philosophical position on the matter is irrelevant. I would not claim to know the absolute truth. Note that open-mindedness should not be taken as an agnotistic stance. I am quite certain that there is no God. I am simply not 100% certain of anything.

So, what does this have to do with a kid’s book on evolution?

The book includes an answer to the question, “What about religion?”

In his answer, Daniel makes a clear statement that science does not address such questions, nor does it interpret knowledge in a spiritual way. This answer is not an answer at all, but a caveat which absolves science of the responsibility of placing value judgments on its discoveries. This is another extremely important property of science. It is concerned with finding truths, regardless of how ugly or unpleasant those truths are. “Passing the buck” is not a matter of dodging the question. It is a matter of preserving the objectivity of science.

What Daniel has done is to immediately dispel any notions that the content of the book must destroy ones’ faith. For that he has taken a good deal of criticism, but he has also received a good deal of support. Although I am thoroughly disgusted that such a section is necessary, I think it was a wise decision. What we need to do is focus on the fact that there is no debate over the theory of evolution, regardless of how much proponents of misguided-design kick and scream about it. Since that theory is so obviously true, the question of religion is moot.

Many have blogged about this issue including (since the book was released) Daniel himself. Each time it comes up, the comments of the blog which breaches the subject become a bit of a war zone.

Related posts:

1. There Must Be an Idiom
2. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
3. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8

In the weeks since I stopped posting regularly and while I was reconstructing last year’s posts, a lot of interesting things have happened.

• Two of my posts will be included in the 2009 Young Australian Skeptics Blog Anthology. This will be available in both eBook and printed form, similar to Open Laboratory. The list is impressive and I am looking forward to what will clearly be a great sample of skepticism and critical thinking.
• I am now on the official Guest list for Dragon*Con 2010! As such, I will participate in at least as many panels and/or talks as last year, maybe more. I hope I am able to participate in both Skeptrack and the Science Track as both offer great opportunities for fun and outreach in addition to the opportunity to work with some amazing people.
• The biggest news is that The Lancet finally fully retracted the article that Andrew Wakefield used to start a panic over the safety of vaccines in 1998. It took several years and many examples of clear ethics violations, but the anti-vaccination movement is in a tailspin over it and the catalyst, a ruling made by the General Medical Council after a fitness to practise hearing that Wakefield acted “irresponsibly and unethically”. In the wake of this:
  
  • Wakefield was forced to resign from his position at Thoughtful House, a group he co-founded in 2005. Another founder, Arthur Krigsman, was not far behind.
  • A paper scheduled for publication in the journal Neurotoxicology with Wakefield as its author has been withdrawn after the editor took a closer look.
  • Of course, none of this stopped Jenny McCarthy and her sidekick from proposing a ridiculous explanation which would allow them to maintain their delusional stance on the relationship between vaccines and autism.
• Meryl Dorey announced that she will probably step down as head of the Australian Vaccination Network, a particularly vile anti-vax propaganda mill that she founded. The group is likely to close its doors as well, citing a lack of funding. I have had confrontations with her online myself and find this less than surprising. It does not help that the AVN is currently under investigation for their particularly disgusting practices.
• Rachael Dunlop beat out CAM artist Joe Mercola for a Shorty Award in Health after a campaign launched by woo peddler Mike Adams hit the skids when he was disqualified for cheating (well, somebody cheated on his behalf at least).
• Podblack Cat Kylie Sturgess is now a columnist for the Skeptical Inquirer website and created a new podcast, Token Skeptic.
• Heidi Anderson has created “a place to discuss, promote, encourage, and celebrate women in science, skepticism, and critical thinking.” She Thought will launch on Pi Day and I hope to contribute on a regular basis. I wonder how Heidi will feel about that…?

Coming soon: the CTEG website is about to experience a major overhaul and I will soon announce a new organization to be feared by all who choose to peddle woo.

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. Maria Walters: Not an Asshole
3. There is No Debate Over Evolution