The Skeptrack site includes a schedule in Eastern time.

If you are attending, I highly recommend this guide to digital content by Tim Farley.

Related posts:

1. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!

A little background:

I tend to be somewhat of a centrist. I often find that the center is the most rational place to be in most debates. In this case, very few people seem to be of the opinion that we should never raise our voices and so the argument is between those advocating for a tone which lacks ridicule, meanness, and other personal attacks and those who claim that such approaches are often effective and sometimes the best choice.

The most vocal of those on the “no ridicule” side are Daniel Loxton and Phil Plait, whose now infamous talk at the Amazing Meeting 8, which I have embedded below, has now been discussed ad nauseum, misinterpreted, clarified, praised, criticized, and every other manner of dissection. In his post, Daniel gives an excellent analysis of the discussion, but even after all of this talk, I continue to feel that the discussion is incomplete and this is my attempt at filling it in.

We all seem to agree that kindness/dickery is not dichotomous, yet we continue to talk about it as if it were.

I would not characterize myself as “kind” in most situations, which troubled me when I first began to think seriously about this issue.

I thought, “There is really no way to tell someone that they are wrong (even if you do it by simply stating what is correct) without hitting a nerve.”

Now, after much thought, discussion, and reading “dickery”, I have realized that being direct, and even forceful, is not “being a dick”.

I do not believe that there is ever a time when ridicule and ad homs are the only choices and I think that there are very few circumstances when they are the best choice. The only situation which comes to mind is when one has been repeatedly subjected to such arguments themselves. (Of course, I do not always make the best choice, but I’m human.)

That said, we do not need to be “kind” or “gentle”, which often requires sugar-coating criticism, to avoid being a dick.

At least by my definition of those terms, the sugar-coated approach is usually as ineffective as vitriol (yes, I can back that up with literature).

What we need to be, as Daniel mentioned, is truthful. And what we need to do, also as he mentioned, is construct valid arguments with supported premises. Ad homs and ridicule have no place in rational debate.

Of course, rational debate often doesn’t work, either, because people are very poor reasoners. However, I stand by my conclusion that it has a better chance than any form of dickery has of advancing our cause, which I understand to be the promotion of critical thinking.

We are not here to convince people to adopt a party line – a set of conclusions. If that were the goal, all of those morally and ethically questionable persuasive techniques would be part of an effective arsenal. And, were that the goal, I would not be a part of it. We aim to give people the motivation and skills to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions – to be rational.

I find the irony of this debate beyond words. We can promote reason using irrational personal attacks? Really?

Phil’s talk:

Phil Plait – Don’t Be A Dick from JREF on Vimeo.

Related posts:

1. There is No Debate Over Evolution
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

Dragon*Con is now just over three weeks away and the schedule is as solid as these things get, so I’m giving you the highlights as promised. I will be one BUSY Skeptic! [Edit: By the way, Dragon*Con will take place over Labor Day weekend, September 3rd through 6th.]

For those who have not heard of it, Dragon*Con an enormous SciFi/Fantasy convention held in Atlanta over Labor Day weekend. Skeptrack, the skeptic fan track, is the brainchild of Derek Colonduno and Robynn McCarthy (A.K.A., “Swoopy”), hosts of Skepticality. As usual, they work their butts off and many skepticism activists do their best to make that work count by participating in talks and panels designed to spread the critical thinking bug to geeks everywhere.

Dragon*Con is very different from conventions like The Amaz!ng Meeting, and not just the costumes. TAM is, at heart, a Dog-and-Pony-Show for skepticism. At Dragon*Con activists do the work of activism and education. There are a number of fan tracks, including a Podcasting Track directed by Swoopy, and Space & Science Tracks, who work closely with Derek and Swoopy. In addition to the obvious Star Wars Track, Trek Track, and Whedonverse Track, there are literature, costuming, and writing tracks. There are also two tracks related to Skeptrack: Paranormal Track and X Track.

The former is self-explanatory, I hope, and this year I will be attending a workshop on that track by Ben Radford on investigating the paranormal (details below). I am very interested in the methods used for this kind of thing as they differ a great deal from the kind of work that I do.

Last year most of Skeptrack was streamed live, but there were some problems. I believe they will try this again this year with, hopefully, fewer headaches. If so, I will provide a link on Facebook and Twitter as soon as it is available, which might be as late as the first day.

If you are attending or planning to stream it live, here is where and when you can find me:

Skepticism, Scams, & Consumerism: Ranging from psychology behind sales to consumer rights, we discuss how as skeptics we identify and challenge dodgy products and pseudosciences.
Time: Friday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will be moderating this panel and talking about the psychology of purchasing behavior. Panelists include Matt Lowry, Rachael Dunlop, Richard Saunders, & Tom Merritt.

The Calculus Diaries – Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, Survive a Zombie Apocalypse: Fun examples of math applications in the real world and why it’s important to understand even just the basic concepts.
Time: Friday 5:30pm – 6:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
This panel is on the Science Track and will mostly be the work of Jennifer Ouellette, whose book with that title will be released August 1st, just in time for me to read it on the plane. As a statistician, I hope I can contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.

How Your Brain Works, and How to Fool It: Our perception of reality is driven more by expectation, belief, and desire than by sensory input. An examination of how we fool ourselves.
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 202
NOTE: This is not the original title and I think it is a little misleading. The original title was “What You See Is [not always] What You Get (or WYSInaWYG)”. The topic is not about how to fool your brain, but how your brain fools you. I believe Jason Schneiderman plans to join me and would be a welcome addition.

Skepticism and Sexuality: When do we get skeptical about sex, the media? When alien cults want to save African clitorises, this panel is here to discuss the facts.
Time: Friday 10:00pm – 11:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will bring with me some of the most interesting myths about the psychology of sex, courtesy of my friend a colleague who teaches the best course on the topic evah. My fellow panelists include Heidi Anderson, Ben Radford, Kylie Sturgess, & Ginger Campbell. Desiree Schell will moderate.

Naturally Skeptical? The Psychology Behind Being a Skeptic: A round table discussion on the factors that do (and don’t!) contribute to becoming a questioner of the paranormal and pseudoscientific.
Time: Saturday 10:00am – 11:00am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I will once again take the reigns as moderator and lead a discussion of the psychology of critical thinking and open-mindedness. I am very pleased that Scott Lilienfeld has decided to join us. He has written quite a bit about pseudoscience in our field, including his latest collaboration, 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior. Other panelists, who are not exactly chopped liver themselves, include D.J. Grothe, Matt Lowry, Kylie Sturgess, & Pamela Gay.

Mathematical Modeling Pitfalls: Model don’t always accurately reflect messy reality, particularly where human behavior is concerned. Algorithms can only mimic human behavior, and there is a lot of room for bias and error as a result.
Time: Sunday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
I am not actually on the schedule for this, but Jennifer Ouellete invited me to contribute when I mentioned my love-hate relationship with modeling and my frustrations in teaching that models are not what they model. If I get it together in time, I will present what I think is a cool visual of what you can do with a simple model that shows how they can be effective science. Well, I think it’s cool, anyway!

Raising Skeptical Geeks: A few known skeptical parents talk about issues and how they a raising their kids to be better rational thinkers.
Time: Sunday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
This is sure to be the highlight of my Dragon*Con experiences as I love to talk about my kids. I am collecting stories and funny quotes to share. I am also thrilled that fellow panelists will be three good friends and one of the geekiest dads (by all appearances) around: Daniel Loxton, Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, & Adam Savage.

Skepticism and Education: JREF now has a Director of Educational Programs – what else is being done out there and how can skeptics help educate the next generation?
Time: Sunday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Of course this is on my list of favorites as well as one of the most important of the panels on which I will serve. Other panelists include D.J. Grothe, Michael Blanford, Daniel Loxton, Pamela Gay, & Matt Lowry. Kylie Sturgess will moderate.

Women: Myths, Feminism And Skepticism: Puzzled by feminine mystique? Searching for your ‘Inner Velma’? Join investigators on gender, pop-culture and what science REALLY tells us!
Time: Monday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Oh, so many myths, so little time! This topic is rich and Heidi Anderson, Desiree Schell, Pamela Gay, Kylie Sturgess, and myself are looking forward to a fact-packed dicussion.

Skeptrack Sign-Off Wrap Up and Feedback: Join the skeptrack guests and speakers for a discussion about how things went, last minute news, and how we can make things better next year!
Time: Monday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Unfortunately, I will not make this discussion and also make my flight home. I am sure, though, that there will be much greatness in the room.

That wraps up my obligations. Here are just a few the events I am looking forward to attending as an audience member (if possible – the * indicates an event I cannot attend due to a scheduling conflict, but recommend):

CSI: Paranormal
Time: Friday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Joe Nickell

*Skeptically Speaking Live!
Time: Friday 8:30pm – 9:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Desiree Schell

Skeptical Coffee Talk
Time: Saturday 8:30am – 9:30am
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi, D.J. Grothe, & Joe Nickell

Paranormal Investigation Workshop
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 3:30pm
Location: Sheraton
Presenters/Panel Members: Ben Radford

*I Very Much Doubt That!
Time: Saturday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton Crystal Ballroom
Presenters/Panel Members: James Randi

*Mystery Investigators Children’s Show
Time: Saturday 2:30pm – 3:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders & Rachael Dunlop

Monster Talk Podcast Live
Time: Saturday 4:00pm – 5:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Blake Smith & Ben Radford

Skeptic Zone Live!
Time: Sunday 7:00pm – 8:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Richard Saunders, Rachael Dunlop, Kylie Sturgess, & Brian Brushwood

Skepticism 2.0: Blogging
Time: Monday 11:30am – 12:30pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: Daniel Loxton, Rebecca Watson, Brian Dunning, Rachael Dunlop, & Kylie Sturgess

Martial Arts Mysticism
Time: Monday 1:00pm – 2:00pm
Location: Hilton 205/206/207
Presenters/Panel Members: John Clements

You can find the full schedules as they become available on the track websites. I hope to see you there!

Related posts:

1. While I Was Sleeping
2. This Stuff is Not Easy!
3. Dragon*Con 2010

In other words, does this look like anything other than what it clearly is? If so, what?

By the way, if you have seen this image before (it was tweeted this morning), please say so.

Then, move on to the previous post to find out what I “saw” and what I hope to learn.

Scroll down for comments!

Related posts:

1. Naughty Elmo Revisited
2. Priming and Pareilolia

SPOILER!!

Read this post first, please.

SPOILER STARTS HERE

Here’s the story…

I caught this tweet this morning:
@BadAstronomer: Beam me up some breakfast. Warp factor three egg omelette. http://twitpic.com/27mfxu

I will pretty much click on anything that starts with “beam me up”, so I did and, as you know, I saw this:

Well, I really saw this:

I even heard theme music in my head. I imagined “NCC-1701″ written on the hull in salsa. Because the original series is the cornerstone and James T. Kirk is the greatest captain of all time, space, film, and literature.

But… would I have perceived it as such if:

• the tweet did not include references to Star Trek?
• the tweet was not from Phil Plait, whom I know to be an avid fellow scifi fanatic?
• the tweet was not from Phil Plait, whom I know to be at Comic-con right now for several reasons?
• I was not lamenting not being at Comic-con myself?
• had not just rearranged a shelf on which our Original Series collection sat, taunting me?

Would Phil Plait had perceived the icon of the god that is Captain James T. Kirk if he were not at Comic-con? If he were not a sci-fi fanatic? You get the picture.

The experience of seeing the DVDs or being at (or thinking about) Comic-con is called a “prime” in the psychological literature, because it activates related information, lowering your perceptual threshold for it. The prime prepares you, in a way, to receive related input.

The tweet itself is a suggestion; it is information about to experience. You then use, in part, top-down processes to interpret the image given that information.

Some good examples of how this works using another sense (hearing) can be found in one of my first blog entries about a very naughty Elmo doll.

Priming effects sometimes confound pareidolia (the tendency to perceive familiar patterns in otherwise meaningless input). However, in laboratory tests, such as that conducted by Vokey & Read and some work a student of mine presented at the Western Psychological Association convention this year, little is perceived from very ambiguous sensory information without priming or suggestion. The “Elmo” post includes several illustrations of this.

So, the question remains: Did we see the Enterprise because it really does look like the Enterprise, or we just amazingly geeky?

Either way, I’m going to add it to my collection. If my readers are even HALF as geeky as me…

Vokey JR, & Read JD (1985). Subliminal messages. Between the devil and the media. The American psychologist, 40 (11), 1231-9 PMID: 4083611

Related posts:

1. A Geeky Experiment
2. Reaching Out and Geeking Out
3. Naughty Elmo Revisited

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.

After a few seconds I realized what she was dealing with and asked, “The Aporkalypse?”

Of course we were talking about the H1N1 scare which, at the time, was still called “swine flu”.

When I explained that, no, I couldn’t give her anything because we simply didn’t know enough, she said, “But these people are buying boxes full of hand sanitizer!”

Now, that I could help her with. There is literature addressing the ability of hand sanitizer to prevent illness, but we simply did not know enough about this new strain of virus to predict what would happen.

Nevertheless, most people jumped to conclusions. Those who did not panic summarily dismissed the issue. This kind of thing recyles itself often (climate change, economics, etc.) and other issues, such as scientific illiteracy, mask the more basic phenomenon: We don’t like uncertainty, so we tend to make decisions about what is true with the information we have, even if that information is insufficient.

This is particularly problematic for skeptics who, once they become fired up about a topic, are often blinded by their passions. Of course, this is true for all of us, but since I spend a lot of my time with skeptics, my anecdotes are about them.

For example, in May of last year, I was a little surprised about the reaction, especially of PZ Myers to this court ruling reported by The Orange County Register:

James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, was found guilty of referring to Creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan.

The reader comments are more of the same polarized complaints of pursecution that I have come to expect from Pharyngula, but there are a few voices of reason.

If this is not the first time you have read this blog, you might wonder why I am not upset by this ruling myself. I am not upset because I actually read the ruling and it seems obvious to me that the ruling itself is a win for science education.

If you read the original complaint, you will discover that this was a public high school history teacher whose mocking of religion during lectures would put PZ to shame, yet comments such as “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth” were ruled as having a pedagogical, secular purpose. In fact, a very long list of clearly derogatory comments (some of which are quoted here) were fine, but this single comment was ruled as having no secular purpose because it was made outside the context of the classroom in his role as an advisor for the school newspaper.

Ed Brayton covers this pretty well, I think, in two posts on the matter.

I bring up this example because the reactions on Facebook and other blogs were much like PZ’s knee-jerk, “How can this happen!” and I think that many people would have a completely different perspective if they took a few minutes to get some facts.

I now realize that it is highly likely that PZ’s reaction would be the same, however, and should have know that at the time, given his last paragraph:

Thirdly, and this must be said, Chad Farnan [the high school student who filed the law suit] is a self-righteously moronic creationist wanker who deserves to have his stupidity pointed out publicly, in the classroom and out of it, far and wide. Spread the word.

Where am I going with this?

Earlier this week, California health authorities released a statement declaring an epidemic of whooping cough which has killed 5 babies already this year. There were several articles including New York Times and Consumer Reports.

Being particularly sensitive to antivaccination propaganda and remembering Dana McCaffery, I was immediately interested and read several articles. I could find nothing to indicate that refusals to vaccinate were the primary culprit.

Then I saw a link to an article on my Facebook feed and these were the first few comments:

“Thanks, Jenny.”

The next post was a link titled “Jenny McCarthy kills another five infants in California.”

*sigh*

I am as anti-anti-vax as they come, but I find it distressing when my side sounds like the other side. I felt much as I do when a pharmaceutical company commits fraud.

The comment about ignorance is particularly troubling, since the commenter is ignorant themselves – ignorant of the fact that Whooping Cough did not simply “appear” anywhere. Vaccinations have done a lot to eradicate diseases like small pox, but Whooping Cough has never been close to being stamped out.

I wondered if anyone actually read the article, because there was nothing in it about vaccine fear.

There are many, many sources to blame for the increases, and vaccinations are certainly the best approach we have to stop the spread of infectious disease, but fear of vaccinations is not likely to be among the most important factors in undervaccination in this case. In 2005, the year of the last abnormal outbreak, research showed that it was not even a significant factor:

Studies have yet to show any obvious reason for the increases. No significant outbreaks have been traced to the children of parents who oppose childhood vaccination. “We’ve looked, and we can’t see any obvious connection,” Woodfill said.

There are many things which much be taken into account in this case, including (some of this information is included in the same 2005 article quoted above):

• Outbreaks of pertussis (Whooping Cough) are cyclical and spikes are normal. As we all know from climate change research, data points and bits are often misleading. “Four times as many cases as last year” is very scary, but it is taken out of context.
• The rate of pertussis has been increasing since at least the 1980s. This may or may not be a “true” increase because diagnosis for pertussis has improved with the availability of a better test in 1995 and with better awareness. Many feel that pertussis was likely to have been underdiagnosed in the past because the symptoms (especially in adults) are similar to bronchitis or flu.
• Immunity often fades without boosters, something we have not known until fairly recently. Pregnant women are often tested for antibodies to some diseases (I discovered I needed to be re-innoculated for Rubella myself when I was pregnant with my first child), but most adults don’t bother with vaccines because they think their childhood vaccines were sufficient.
• A booster is recommended for children entering middle school and many states require it for school, but not California.
• California has a large population of immigrants. The 5 children who died were latino. The areas with the highest numbers of cases are areas with large segments of migrant farm workers – poor and uneducated, with little access to quality health care. Although vaccines are free to children on Medical and through other programs, how are parents to know that these vaccines are needed if they do not have proper preventative care? How will they know where or how to receive them?
  Furthermore, many of these immigrants are undocumented. The are unlikely to seek these services or information if they are afraid of deportation.

A few articles, particularly in newspapers for affluent counties like Marin, have cited vaccine refusal as the culprit. They may be correct, but in each case their evidence was the hunch of a single doctor they interviewed. That’s just not enough evidence for a reasonable skeptic.

My point here is not that anti-vaccination propaganda is acceptable. My point is that this issue is complicated, and knee-jerk reactions without even taking the time to read the the information on which one is commenting are irresponsible and damaging.

I left a comment on that thread and the first response was disheartening:

Ok. So the article doesn’t represent the world JMcC has made, but rather the one she wants. Abortion clinic bombings aren’t universal either, but I’m still comfortable using a bit of hyperbole when telling Focus on the Family to fuck off. It’s hard to fit entire position papers into FB threads, and “Immigration Body Count” would be a bit of a red herring.

First, I do not believe that Jenny McCarthy wants children to die. I have no problem calling her a moron as I have in the past. People who have had the truth explained to them as often and as simply as she has and still insist on moving forward with their deadly campaign have earned that much. However, ignorance, arrogance, and incompetence are not wishing children dead, nor is it a reason to wish someone dead as one of the other commenters did.

But what really strikes me is the odd reference to a red herring which is backwards. There is no “hyperbole” here and going off on Jenny McCarthy in reaction to this announcement is a bit like shooting someone for dropping their cigarette butt into the lake while watching a barge dump 3 tons of trash into it 50 yards away.

This is a fallacy of relevance and it chips away at the credibility of anyone who tries to argue that such propaganda is harmful.

Not long after reading this, I saw a link to Bad Astronomy. It is a passionate and certainly heart felt tyrade over the anti-vaccination efforts of people like Jenny McCarthy and Meryl Dorey, but it starts with a discussion of the Whooping Cough epidemic as its title suggests. Phil is one of the more rational among well-known skeptics and I expected more from him.

So I left a comment.

Phil did reply to my comment, and at some point he added a caveat to his post. I do not generally reread posts unless asked, but part of his reply did not sit well with me. In fact, it angered me.

But it’s also true the movement has been making footholds all over the country, and I will take opportunities to point that out when I can.

I felt dismissed, and my anger is clearly reflected in my response:

Defensive much?

By this logic, I should write nice long rant about subtle sexism every time women only make up 20% of a company’s employee list, regardless of how many women applied for those jobs.

And have you thought about what this does to your credibility? To our credibility?

Yes, the anti-vax movement SUCKS. But I’ll repeat what I said because I think it’s important enough to say again: knee-jerk reactions don’t help.

Neither does a defensive response when someone points out that you may have reacted emotionally rather than rationally. You’re human. People will actually admire you more if you admit that.

Just sayin’.

He rebutted that I had overreacted.

Knowing how Phil feels about this topic, I believe quite strongly that, if the shoe were on the other foot, he would have lectured me on the seriousness of the matter. Crying wolf while the sheep are dying of starvation does more than harm Little Boy Blue’s credibility. It prompts people to devote resources to a wolf hunt which are better spent feeding the sheep.

And he would be right to do so. How can we call these people ignorant if we knowingly incite others to make statements of ignorance, like “The disease is making a come-back” and “Thanks, Jenny”? … and if we never correct them? or ourselves?

If I had spent a little more time editing, I probably would have left out the two words of sarcasm, but I cannot say for certain that I would. I am a little person with fewer than 100 readers and I felt slapped down for criticizing someone with millions who is hero-worshipped by most of the community. If you doubt his reach, try Googling “Bad Astronomy” sometime. It took every ounce of courage I have to post a comment in the first place, knowing that many people I consider friends would not take kindly to their friend being criticized.

I felt that this issue is extremely important and it is one of many examples in which passion and polarization get in the way rational thinking. Perhaps another is the double-standards we apply to so many situations.

Just as none of us are completely free of sacred cows, none of us are completely objective. And none of us are perfect, either. For my part, I promise that my intent is always to be the best person that I can be; it is never my intent to be mean unless I (or a friend) am under attack.

I also promise that I will insult people. Sometimes that will be intentional. Sometimes it will be because I was thoughtless and insensitive. Most of the time, however, it will either be my own knee-jerk reaction to feeling dismissed, ignored, or slighted. Every time it will be me being me, for better or for worse.

I think I would rather be disliked for being honest with a touch of sarcasm than be liked for having nothing except praise. The latter also means that I have little which is constructive to say.

Related posts:

1. Is that a fallacy in your pocket or can you cite some sources? A response to Women and Feminism at TAM8