While I was on vacation, I missed a post by Sharon Hill on Skeptical Inquirer online. She recently re-shared the piece on Facebook, so I had an opportunity to give it a good read. Sharon’s pieces are usually filled with thoughtful reminders to reign in arrogance and do more than just tolerate other view points, embrace them and learn from them. I highly recommend following her regular columns there or at her blog, Doubtful News.

Is science hazardous?

This recent piece seems to be in response to the current discussion about the limits (and lack thereof) of science, such as this piece by Steven Pinker. However, it lacks the nuance I’ve seen in criticisms of Pinker’s piece.

Hill’s piece seems to define scientism, science, and several other terms somewhat vaguely, oversimplifying the issue and overcomplicating it at the same time. She begins the argument by claiming, if I may use an analogy, that there are many different ways to skin a cat, but then goes on to support that claim by pointing out that there are questions about whether the cat should be skinned, how much the process will cost, and whether the cat has a name. Answering these questions and skinning the cat are different tasks with different goals.

But it is this claim that I take the most issue with:

People who advocate fanatical reliance on science—where all competing methods of gaining knowledge are illegitimate—are practicing scientism.

This definition may very well put me in the category of “practicing scientism”, but it depends on what she means by “illegitimate”. While I recognize that personal knowledge can come from any number of methods and sources, respecting personal knowledge is not a reasonable stance when it comes to enacting policies and making choices which involve other people. To make the best choices, we need to rely on shared knowledge.

And I certainly do believe that empirical methods are necessary to gain genuine, reliable information about the world. In fact, that’s a basic assumption of science (more on that later).

The “just apply science” plan is an overly simplistic solution that not everyone will automatically buy into. There are other, also valid ways of evaluating problems. All the world’s problems cannot be solved by throwing science at it. At least not now (probably never).

This is a confusing statement with twists and turns.

First, whether or not “everyone will automatically buy into” a solution is no measure of the solution’s value.

Second, the statement about evaluating problems conflates the different tasks and goals associated with solving problems. Science, philosophy, and the humanities are different animals. To complicate matters, science incorporates philosophy and the humanities incorporate some scientific thinking. None of these things can tell us what to value, either.

For example, philosophy studies problems; it doesn’t solve them. Philosophy can only provide a way of thinking, not the information that one is to think about. Science, for that matter, doesn’t solve problems, either. It seeks and provides information and explanation. Technology solves problems, but it doesn’t do so just by thinking about them. Technology uses the products of science and scientific thinking (which includes products of philosophy) to solve problems.

So, this seems like a lot of apples and oranges and bananas to me.

The piece also contains more than a few straw men. For example:

For a start, scientism has utility problems. If we need to justify everything with empirical evidence, and then justify that evidence with evidence, and so on, not only do we get bogged down in minutiae, we end up in a scientistic loop which we can’t resolve. There must be a point where we accept a premise as a given – that reality is real, that we aren’t being fooled by a devious creator.

This is not only a straw man, it’s a misleading. Science does accept several premises as givens. In most college-level introductory science textbooks you can find these listed as “canons” or “assumptions”. For example, science assumes that the universe is deterministic, that all events have natural causes. Without this assumption, science can tell us nothing about the world with confidence because anything we observe might be explained by the supernatural.

So in a sense, the argument supports “scientism”.

Hill goes on to admonish over-enthusiasm for science because it “can mask the attention that should be paid to human social issues that are too complex…”, yet her examples are not issues too complex for science, but questions of policy which involve more than just information (e.g., one example involves the ethical question of whether to carry a fetus to full term knowing that it will be born with a debilitating condition). Science informs values, it doesn’t dictate them. However, values can’t answer those questions by themselves any more than science can.

Look at our laws. Many are informed by science (cigarette restrictions, driving after alcohol consumption, environmental regulations) but are tempered by other human interests such as personal pleasures, social norms and economic considerations.

Again, this seems a bit of a straw man. While there are those who claim that science can dictate values (which are embedded in each of those “human interests”), that is not a typical view and does not seem to be the view that Hill is railing against.

Science cannot tell us what we value or what we should value, but without scientifically-derived information and thought processes, we will fail to make choices and policies which promote those values.

Here is an example from my recent talks at TAM2013 and Dragon*Con, as covered in What Intelligence Tests Miss by Keith Stanovich:

In a study by Ubel, participants were asked to allocate 100 livers to 200 children who needed transplants. The children were presented in two groups: A and B. As you can imagine, most participants divided the livers equally, giving half to one group and half to another.

However, when the participants were told that the children in group A had an estimated 80% average chance of surviving the surgery, while the children in group B had only an estimated 20% average chance, the allocations varied much more. About one quarter of the participants gave all of the livers to group A, one quarter gave half to A and half to B, and half of the participants distributed the livers in a manner in between these two choices (i.e., one quarter gave 75 of the livers to group A and 25 to group B).

When asked why they gave livers to group B, participants justified their actions by saying things like “needy people deserve transplants, whatever their chance of survival.” This, of course, ignores the real question, which is how to allocate a limited number of livers to save the most lives. It tells us nothing about why the individual chose one child over another.

Participants in another study were given the same task except that the recipients were not grouped. Instead, they listed the recipients individually, ranked by the individual chance of survival. If the justifications were true, we would expect at least 25% of the participants to allocate the livers to every other child, or somewhat randomly down the list. Instead, participants had no problem allocating all of the livers to the top 100 children on the list.

The difference between the answers when the children are grouped and the answers when they are listed individually is called a “Framing Effect”. The way the problem is framed determines how a majority of the participants respond to it.

Now, science can’t tell us what’s “right” in this situation, but it can sure tell us how to meet our goals once we have decided what those goals are.

Let’s assume that our goal is to maximize the number of children who will be saved. Rational thought tells us that, given that goal and the choice of the two groups, we should give all of the livers to group A (science tells us that those are the children with the best chance for survival). The difference between that choice and the equal distribution is an expected 30 dead children.

It should be obvious from this example that considering our values and goals is not enough to make the best choices. We need good information and good thought processes to make the kinds of decisions that allow us to meet our goals.

One more statement that got under my skin:

When we overly indulge our science bias in informing decisions, such as in the realm of policy, the risk of making an unpopular guidance or rule increases.

Wait a minute. Is our goal to put the most popular policies in place or the best policies? For my part, I want policies that are best for society and the individuals within it. I don’t care if they are popular or not.

Science is not perfect or infallible, even when implemented correctly. Our knowledge is incomplete, which means that we will make a lot of mistakes when we take actions based on that limited knowledge. However, it will always beat human judgments in the long run, allowing us to make the best decisions and take the best actions toward our goals.

Works cited:

Stanovich, Keith E. (2009). What intelligence tests miss: The psychology of rational thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ubel, P.A. (2000). Pricing life: Why it’s time for health care rationing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Several people have asked me if I plan to respond to PZ Myers, considering the “beating” he gave me and others in a post last week.

No, I don’t. I may if I see a good reason, but the truth is that responding to him is a bit like debating a creationist. Sometimes one should, but this is not one of those times. In this case, PZ has so grossly misrepresented my writings and statements that it is very clear that no productive discussion can occur with him on the matter. This is not the first time he has done so and not the first time that I have essentially ignored it. The post is almost entirely built on mischaracterizations, straw men, and falsehoods. If anyone else wants to discuss it, I will be happy to do so after you have read what I actually wrote, context and all.

Instead, I think that this is a good time to gather some of the more recent materials on the matter in one place because I strongly believe that most of the discussion in the general community over these issues involve new members trying to get a handle on what we’re all about. So, I will summarize my views on the matter in a few bullet points and provide a list of links to posts, publications, and videos what are free to all.

I will not be discussing tone and approach, but some of the materials do touch on this issue. I disagree with Novella and a few others on that question and it is always a discussion worth having, but separately.

As always, I welcome comments, but ask that if you plan to leave a comment arguing against my stance, please look through the links and read/watch those which appear to address your argument before you do so. I really hate repeating myself, especially when I have written what I think is a clear explanation, so I am quite likely to respond by referring you to one of the links.

A summary of my position and opinions on the issues:

• Skepticism, secularism, humanism, and atheism (as an issue for activism, not a conclusion) are distinct ideologies with differing central values. These distinctions are important for several reasons, including organizational focus, communication, and personal objectivity. Those are covered in more detail in the materials linked.
• Many people have adopted more than one of these ideologies (I, for example, have adopted all of them to some degree), creating a “greater” community we tend to refer to as the “rationalist” community. Not all community members have adopted all ideologies.
• Activism is about goals, and organizations form around specific goals to promote specific ideologies. Although the “greater rationalist community” shares a few core values, most importantly a naturalistic world view, each organization uses its resources in different ways, supporting different priorities.
• Central to one of these ideologies, atheism, is the conclusion that there is no higher power (god). The ideological part is the value that belief in a higher power is harmful. There is more to atheism than that and I will not outline how it differs from secularism, etc., but these points are important because conflation of the conclusion with the value is one source of conflict.
• At the core of scientific skepticism is the view that evidence-based reasoning is the best way to decide what is and is not true.  Furthermore, the only legitimate way to acquire evidence is through the scientific method, which is basically a combination of systematic observation (empiricism) and reason. Therefore, scientific skepticism involves using the scientific method to test claims.
• The major Skeptic organizations have expressed missions to promote scientific skepticism. They do so for a number of reasons, both epistemic and pragmatic, most of which have been discussed at length in past days, weeks, months, years, and decades (and so on).
  • From a “best practices” standpoint, skepticism reaches more people by focusing its efforts on testable claims because it can include those people who have not adopted one or more of the other ideologies I mentioned (e.g., atheism).
  • From a philosophical standpoint, science is a method for acquiring knowledge, all of which is tentative. Because nobody knows with absolute certainty what is true, the method is much more important than personal conclusions. The method is how we can convince other people that our conclusions are accurate.
  • Also from a best practices standpoint, promoting methods (which includes sharing evidence and information such as alternative explanations for events) provides people with the tools to evaluate other claims more effectively.
  • From both a philosophical and best practices standpoint, promoting personal conclusions rather than method is a violation of basic scientific tenets and logic. Likewise, when we judge a person’s ability to use methods based solely on their beliefs (e.g., statements such as “Christians are not good skeptics”), we are judging an argument by its conclusion and not the merits of the argument itself. This is not scientific at all. Ironically, it’s bad skepticism.
• Skepticism activists do promote some conclusions, such as the conclusion that vaccines are relatively safe and effective, however, we do so with great care. Where scientific consensus is weak or lacking, expertise and personal responsibility is vital.
• Objectivity is a central feature of scientific thinking and, therefore, of scientific skepticism. Although no human being is purely objective (arguable, but I think most of us agree), one of the main purposes of the scientific method is to remove subjectivity from the inquiry process. In practice, it’s imperfect, but if we throw our hands up on this issue because scientists are not unbiased, we must reject science altogether. It’s that central.
• Because objectivity is central to skepticism and values such as political ideologies should not drive the practice of skepticism or science, but should be informed by the findings of science and skeptical inquiry (e.g, science cannot tell us if gun control is good, but it can tell us if a specific regulation is likely to reduce the number of deaths by gun). In other words, economy, religion, and feminism are not “off-limits”. They should be and are subjected to the same treatment that all other topics are subjected to. They appear to receive different treatment merely because the claims made in these areas tend to be more complex and more difficult to test (if they are testable at all). Furthermore, these topics tend to be attached to strongly-held values and, because human beings are notoriously tenacious in their beliefs, more controversial.
• The difficulties with discussions of complex topics makes internal agreement less common and without internal agreement, good outreach efforts are not possible because no coherent, unified message is possible. The goal of most activist organizations is outreach more than community and they are trying to maximize success, not put up roadblocks to it. Therefore, they tend to focus on claims which provide a more predictable and clear outcome.

I could get into more detail, but that isn’t my goal with this post. So, I will stop here. Following is a list of excellent materials which discuss, in one form or another, the scope of skeptic activism, its purposes, and its value.

Free Publications (these three should be required reading):

• Where Do We Go From Here? by Daniel Loxton – The most to-the-point discussion of why we do what we do, sometimes referred to as a skeptical manifesto
• What Do I Do Next? edited by Daniel Loxton – a collection of discussion about skeptical activism by leading skeptics
• Why Is There A Skeptical Movement? by Daniel Loxton – A two-part essay with highlights from the history of the movement and a practical discussion of scope

Blog Posts/Web Publications:

• Scientific Skepticism, CSICOP, and the Local Groups by Steven Novella and David Bloomberg – a primer on scientific skepticism and organizational scope
• Bigfoot Skeptics, New Atheists, Politics and Religion by Steven Novella – a response to PZ Myers and another blogger who suggested that skeptical activism needs to expand its scope
• PZ Replies by Steven Novella – a continuation of the dialogue with PZ Myers, responding to a reply in which Myers accuses several of us (myself included) of intellectual dishonesty and cowardice
• Scientific Skepticism, Rationalism, and Secularism by Steven Novella – more clarifications incorporating the discussions which followed the dialogue with PZ.
• Steven Novella Steven Novella Takes on Some of the Oldest Clichés About Scientific Skepticism-Again by Daniel Loxton – more on the conversation between Novella and Myers
• You May Be Forgiven For Thinking That Some Skeptics Are Taking A Firm Stance, But… by Kylie Sturgess – more on the conversation (and a reiteration that the arguments are not new) with added emphasis on the importance of educating one’s self before criticizing
• Further Thoughts on Atheism by Daniel Loxton – discusses the need compartmentalization of concepts (atheism and skepticism), mostly for pragmatic reasons
• The Surprising Twists of TAM9’s Diversity Panel by Daniel Loxton – discusses the way that a focus on methodology allows for a more inclusive group
• The Conflation of Atheism and Skepticism: Fact or Fiction? by Kylie Sturgess – a discussion of the problems with confusing methods with conclusions
• Skepticism and Religion – Again by Steven Novella – a reminder of the reasons behind mission focus and what it does and does not mean in terms of how skeptics approach religious claims
• A Few Comments on the Nature and Scope of Skepticism by Jim Lippard – a discussion of the problems with conflating skepticism with atheism and assuming that one leads to the other. This blog contains a large number of posts on scope, many of which are linked in this post, so I will only link to this one, but I highly recommend browsing through them
• On the Scope of Skeptical Inquiry by Massimo Pigliucci – discusses the relationships among philosophy, skepticism, atheism, etc.
• What Is Skepticism, Anyway? by Michael Shermer – also includes a video, so it’s listed twice here
• Is There a New Atheism at the JREF? by D.J. Grothe – a response to accusations that the JREF’s mission might be shifting with an emphasis on the organization’s priorities
• Media Guide to Skepticism by Sharon Hill – Sharon worked with community leaders to produce a summary of the purpose and scope of organized skepticism.
• Blog post by Daniel Loxton introducing a video of a panel at TAM 2013.
• John Horgan is “Skeptical of Skeptics” by Steve Novella
• Bigfoot Serses the Quest for World Peace? by Daniel Loxton

Posts on this blog:

• Take Back Skepticism Part I: The Elephant in the Room – The first in a three-part series about the scope of skepticism, tone, and arguments about both
• Take Back Skepticism, Part II: The Overkill Window – the second in a three-part series which focuses on the propogation of hate and irrational arguments about tone and scope
• Take Back Skepticism, Part III: The Dunning-Kruger Effect – the third in a three-part series which focuses on overconfidence and anti-intellectualism displayed during arguments about scope
• Paved With Good Intentions – about the dangers of allowing values to drive the process and interfere with objectivity
• Why the “Critical” in Critical Thinking – covers the basic falsification approach in science and critical thinking to explain the purpose of critique
• You Can’t Judge an Argument by Its Conclusion – describes the Belief Bias (a form of Confirmation Bias) and explains why judging a person’s ability to reason based on their beliefs is fallacious (ironically)
• Mission Drift, Conflation, and Food For Thought – discusses some of the dangers of “mission drift” and attempting to add values such as political ideologies to organizational missions
• What Matters – a response to the misguided view that skeptical activism does not focus on things that matter
• Scientific Skepticism: A Tutorial – about definitions and scope

To watch/listen

• Overlapping Magisteria, TAM2012 – Jamy Ian Swiss talks about the importance of mission focus, the value of the work that skeptics do, and the reason we value methods more than conclusions
• Skepticism is a Humanism, NECSS 2010 – D.J. Grothe’s keynote, which discusses the scope of skeptical activism, noting that, although it is methods-based we are motivated to activism by humanist values
• On the Ledge, Skeptrack at Dragon*Con 2011 – A panel discussion with Eugenie Scott, Margaret Downey, D.J. Grothe, and me, moderated by Derek Colanduno about the overlap of atheism and skepticism, its challenges, advantages, and pitfalls. Ideology is discussed about half way through
• What Is Skepticism, Anyway? by Michael Shermer – also includes a blog post, so it’s listed twice here
• Skeptical Scope and Mission, a panel at TAM 2013 with myself, Daniel Loxton, Steven Novella, Jamy Ian Swiss, and moderated by Sharon Hill.
• How To Be A Bad Skeptic, Q.E.D. – D.J. Grothe’s rundown on some of the dos and don’ts of skepticism. You’ll have to guess which parts are facetious and which are serious. By this point, you should be able to do this.

I will add to this post as new content becomes available, so if I have missed any that you think should be included (and it is freely available online), please contact me on Twitter or Facebook so that I can add them into the body of the post. I will also apologize now if I have missed something important. There has been so much discussion of this topic that I was a bit overwhelmed trying to put together just the highlights.

Tuesday I returned home from my third Dragon*Con, “the largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the universe!” I’m not a big fan of crowds, so I probably would not choose to attend such an event without getting something significant out of it. In this case, I certainly do.

For those new to the community (and this blog), Skepticism is well-represented at Dragon*Con thanks to Derek Colanduno and Robynn (Swoopy) McCarthy of Skepticality. Derek is the director for Skeptrack, the skeptic fan track at Dragon*Con, with the help of Swoopy (who directs the podcasting track) and a number of awesome staff. The track began as a few talks/panels on the Science Track and grew quickly, claiming a large room of its own. Equipment on loan from AburptMedia, along with some handy technicians (who, along with Derek, Swoopy, and the rest of the staff, donate their time) make it possible to stream the Skeptrack content in one’s home on another continent.

This year I participated in five events, including one on the Science Track. This was half as many as last year, so I was able to attend many more of the other talks and panels. But don’t get me wrong – I am quite satisfied that my work was productive and was very glad to be a spectator as others, particularly Phil Plait and Pamela Gay, appeared to run from room to room and talk themselves hoarse as I did at D*C 2010.

I particularly enjoyed a “quiz show” hosted by Brian Thompson called Wait! Wait! Don’t Fool Me! with contestants Phil Plait, Rebecca Watson, George Hrab, and Blake Smith. Tears were streaming down my face, I laughed so hard. Another great show was a series of cool science demos which reminded me of my childhood visits to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago and the Museum of Science in Boston. Matt Lowry walked on glass! Here’s a short video of some of what I saw:
 

A panel about activism was mostly excellent, with D.J. Grothe echoing some of the concerns about which I have written recently, but a few statements rubbed me the wrong way. In particular, Brian Brushwood appeared to advocate for “trying anything” without thought to whether it would accomplish any goals or finding out whether it’s been done before by someone who can offer advice. We need innovation, but careless abandon is dangerous and wasteful. Resources are limited and risks are always involved. Another point that was raised was that many people new to skepticism are concerned primarily with issues of religion. I fail to see the relevance of this point. All of the major organizations defend science and science education (e.g., evolution). All of the major organizations debunk testable claims with religious content (e.g., faith healing). Most importantly, however, there are many atheist organizations for those who would like to attack religion or make religion a focus. The idea that defending the focus and scope of skepticism somehow ties the hands of individuals is a bit silly. All of the major skeptic organizations limit their missions to testable claims for reasons which have nothing to do with the threat level or pervasiveness of the claim. The focus on evidence, not conclusions, is a matter of scientific integrity. But of course I have said all of this before.

Two other talks that did not disappoint were given by Genie Scott and Jonathan Strickland of How Stuff Works. Scott gave a fascinating history of creationism and Strickland covered consumer skepticism of tech products. Both were excellent.

A quick summary of the events in which I participated:

The Surprising Science of Self-Esteem – I admit that I was a bit nervous about the attendance for this talk, even though it was a terrific time slot (Friday night at 7pm) on the Science Track. It isn’t the kind of title that would attract me, but my hope was that some of the audience would be deterred from some of the self-esteem boosting BS that I’ve seen, which was more likely if they were there expecting to hear about it. I also pimped the talk to all of the friends I could find beforehand. It’s a topic I have spent a great deal of time with recently and I put quite a bit of work into the material for this talk. Of course the track itself is a draw and the room was packed as always.

I opened by warning the audience that I had misled them a bit. I was planning to talk about self-esteem, but more of the hour would be devoted to something related, but different: narcissism. I do not know if anyone was disappointed; unfortunately, an hour is just not enough time to cover the topic the way I’d wanted to cover it and there was no time for Q & A. Judging by the response (and the sharp victory cry of “YES!” from one audience member when I said, “If you were hoping for a motivational speech, you’ll be disappointed”), most in the audience were glad they stayed.

I will be writing about the topic and my talk in a series of blog posts. In the meantime, a few signs that you might be a narcissist:

• Your name is part of the title and/or URL of your blog (unless you are a best-selling author).
• Your resume is padded with exaggerated or imaginary accomplishments.
• You are as concerned with what your date is wearing as you are your own appearance.
• You believe that you can help others improve their appearance (makeover!) and you are not a hairdresser.
• You celebrate a win by yelling “In your face!” at your opponent rather than “Good game”.
• Your Facebook photo albums (other than your profile pics) include more pictures with you than without you, especially if the pictures are of you alone.
• You brag, especially when you’ve receive a compliment or two from people who are either biased (family and friends) or otherwise not in a position to judge.
• You equate criticism with disrespect or insults. Narcissists do not handle rejection or criticism well and many become angry and aggressive in response.
• You often park in handicapped spaces or red zones, cut in line, cram into elevators before letting people out, block isles and walkways, etc. Entitlement is very, very highly correlated with narcissism.
• You wear clothing with your own likeness on them.
• You have any bumper stickers or social media graphics like those below.

Education/Debunking: What’s the Difference? –  JREF president D.J. Grothe moderated and the panelists were myself, JREF education director Michael Blanford, Skeptical Teacher Matt Lowry, Podblack Cat Kylie Sturgess, and IIG-West’s Brian Hart. I think that we agreed that ‘debunking’ was helpful in education and that teachers do not need to choose between facts and methods. Usually, teaching facts and debunking claims is best accomplished by discussing how we know what we know (empirical testing) and demonstrating that particular feats (e.g., apparent mind reading) can be accomplished without supernatural forces.

On the Ledge – Moderated by Derek Colanduno, this panel was originally planned as a discussion of the independent film The Ledge, but the film’s writer/director, Matthew Chapman, was forced to cancel at the last minute. Although the film came up, the panel, which included D.J. Grothe, NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott, Margaret Downey of The Freethought Society, and myself, focused on the definition of skepticism as well as the missions and scopes of the organizations promoting skepticism, secularism, and atheism.

I believe we agreed on the overlapping, but separate roles and goals of these organizations as well as the reasons demarcations between them exist. It is about more than focus and the best use of resources. It is a matter of maintaining integrity. Something that Genie Scott said stuck with me. She noted that we each have ideologies which we cannot and should not ignore; they make us who we are. However, these ideologies (about which we do not all agree) must be set aside in the pursuit of knowledge because they affect the way that we reason and make decisions (as the literature in my field has clearly shown). This is precisely the argument made in regard to the scope of skepticism (the broader scope, anyway): political, religious, and other ideologies carry with them the baggage of untestable claims, non-empirical conclusions, and conclusions which are arrived at through biased views of evidence.

Very Superstitious… – Moderated by Kylie Sturgess, panelists were me, Atlanta Skeptics Stephen King (a Stephen King, not the Stephen King) and Robert Blaskiewicz, and Skeptic Neurologist Steve Novella. We heard some funny stories about some of the more interesting superstitions which are widely (or narrowly) practiced and discussed the origins of superstitions as a natural product of the pattern- and control- seeking human brain.

Token Skeptic Podcast – I participated in a live recording of Kylie Sturgess’s podcast, along with Derek Colanduno and Steve Novella. It was the last day of Dragon*Con and Kylie was the only Australian in attendance this year. In a departure from the usual serious science and skepticism Kylie produces, she took the opportunity to abuse the Americans. In the first five minutes, she managed to claim Tim Minchin for Australia and disown Mel Gibson, throwing in Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe to boot. I think she just wanted an excuse to dump Mel on us. If that wasn’t enough, she tortured the audience with musk sticks and vegimite! Of course, I don’t know if you can call it torture when they volunteered, but she certainly would have known that they would be skeptical of Steve Novella’s description of vegimite (“It’s like chewing on my dirty gym socks.”) I likened it to Big Foot’s toe jam and I stand by that assessment. Musk sticks are a particularly vile “candy” which tastes strangely like aftershave. blech.

She did redeem herself by offering some wonderful carmels and discussing a topic I know little about: gaming. Apparently, my co-guests were both avid gamers and Novella wrote a few (well, more than that – 7) rule books. As the wife of a gamer who is often asked to calculate odds, I was impressed. The rules for these games are incredibly complicated and must be balanced enough to ensure that a game holds the players’ interest. I thought the panel was going well until the fire alarm went off and Kylie did her best Mel Gibson impression before diving off the stage into the audience… Okay, that’s not exactly how it went, but the panel did end and the ‘all clear’ was sounded before we got much further than the hall.

First, the swan song: three undergraduate students are on their way to The Amaz!ng Meeting 9 this year, but they need your help. They have raised about half of the amount they need to cover registration and travel expenses, but they still have nearly $1,000 to raise. Please consider purchasing a WooDoo Doll – a fun outlet for your frustrations, loosely based on the voodoo doll – or making a direct donation. Every little bit helps.

To skip the news, scroll down for more information about these students, the adorable WooDoo Dolls, and for a link to donate.

Yes, I said “swan song”.

As some readers may know, I will not be returning to teach at CSU, Northridge in the fall. I resigned from my position for several reasons, most of which I hope will become clear in the coming weeks and months as I write more about my experiences of the last decade. If you are interested, stay tuned. This will soon be a ‘real blog’ again as I will have much more time to write.

In the meantime, there are many questions to answer about what I will do now and where this leaves the organization(s) I have started. Woo Fighters will continue in some form, but not as it is today. The mission of the organization was to motivate students to become activists for science and scientific/skeptical thinking. Since I will no longer have students – at least in the traditional sense, the focus must change.

In addition, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the name of the organization. I like it. I like the term “woo” to describe pseudoscience and I find “Woo Fighters” catching and fun. However, many whom I respect find the term bordering on offensive. Although I often make fun of what I deem to be some of the sillier beliefs, I have always spoken out against the ridicule of believers. That distinction is lost on some.

The final ‘nail on the coffin’ for the name comes from my son, who started the first “Junior Woo Fighters” club at his middle school. The club was very successful and I hope that he continues it next year, however, they quickly settled into calling the group a “Skeptics Club” and that is the name that stuck. So, “Woo Fighters” wasn’t such a great name after all.

I will keep the site up for now, but will eventually archive the entries somewhere accessible to all. As for the organization, I need to spend more time thinking about my personal goals before I make any decisions about rolling it into another organization, but Woo Fighters will ‘die’, at least in name and at CSUN, at the end of this summer.

I feel somewhat sad at its passing, especially before it had the opportunity to gain a great deal of momentum. That said, there are several reasons to call it a success. Not only did several students discover that they are excellent writers and critical thinkers, some discovered a community of people who think like they do. At least a few will become activists or educators focused on changing the world one thinker at a time.

I am especially proud to announce that Dylan Keenberg, who attended his first TAM last year with your help, fulfilled his promise to submit a proposal for a Sunday talk this year and has earned a spot at the podium!

Among the new TAM-goers this year are three of my most capable and promising undergraduate students.

Kameron Nason (Kami) and Heather Rees served as teaching assistants for research methods courses during my last semester. Kami has her sights on a career as a therapist. She has been drawn to skepticism in the past year as she has learned more about science and has become more comfortable with uncertainty.

Heather is a self-described “scifi geek” whose plans include research in social and cognitive psychology and university teaching. She is deeply concerned with gender issues and thinks that encouraging critical thinking will reduce social inequalities.

Loretta Aguilar learned about skepticism in my applied cognition course last fall, but like most skeptics, she was once very interested in psychic phenomena and astrology. She hopes to learn more about the promotion and teaching of critical thinking and skepticism so that she can help family and friends make better choices. Loretta is currently planning a career in clinical psychology.

These three are among the brightest and most motivated students I have had the privilege to teach. They are all looking forward to meeting more like-minded people and learning more.

How you can help

To raise the money needed for registration and travel expenses, we have been very busy making WooDoo Dolls – a fun outlet for your frustrations, loosely based on the voodoo doll. The online prices include shipping, but if you are planning to attend TAM9, you may be able to pick up one directly from the students for only $5. These dolls are handmade and rough-looking, but sturdy. Choose from 5 options for hair color to personalize your doll.

If you are not interested in a doll, but would still like to help, please consider making a direct donation of any amount. Every little bit helps!

Thank you for your support and readership over the last two years! Look for me at the TAM9 workshop “Skepticism in the Classroom”. I will be making suggestions and providing resources for critical thinking education at various ages. I will also be presenting at Dragon*Con again this year in September.

As you know, early this month I had the privilege of participating in a number of events at Dragon*Con, a large sci-fi fantasy convention held in Atlanta every year. In this, my second year presenting on both Skeptrack and the Science Track, my presence was not without personal sacrifice. I arranged alternative lessons for my classes, traveled across the country at my own expense, and worked nearly non-stop during the convention. I had little time to attend events as just an audience member or wander around looking at costumes. I was not unhappy about that at all, since my reason for being there was to promote and teach critical thinking, scientific thought, and skepticism. I left feeling quite satisfied that I had accomplished just that.

Brian Dunning received a Parsec Award for his work on Skeptoid. Photo by Daniel Loxton

Until I read Skepchick Rebecca Watson’s article at the Skeptical Inquirer Online entitled DragonCon: A Chance to Preach Beyond the Choir?

According to the article, some of the talks did not “really capture the attention of the sci-fi/fantasy crowd”. There was some question as to whether a talk called Mathematical Modeling Pitfalls could compete with a panel on the Science Track called How to Raise a Mad Scientist“. Rebecca implied that she would have rather attended a session titled Robot Battles than participate in a panel and suggested that the audience for this panel was small because of the competing session. She also suggested that, due to the distractions of other events, “…it may be well worth the effort for SkepTrack’s dedicated volunteers to avoid the typical and occasionally dry topics we see elsewhere and instead cater to the ridiculous.”

The promotional efforts of the Skepchick/Women Thinking Free (WTF) Foundation project were presented as an example of effective outreach to be emulated. The project involved bringing a free vaccine clinic to the adjacent Mall (it was too late to arrange for space at the convention itself) and a table for the organization was set up outside the large “Walk of Fame” ballroom at which they placed posters of sci/fi-fantasy characters with bandages from vaccinations.

Finally, several loaded/rhetorical questions suggested that Skeptrack is full of self-described skeptics and fails at outreach.

Essentially, what I read in this review is:

• Skeptrack is boring.
• Skeptrack content doesn’t appeal to Rebecca Watson, therefore she doesn’t think that it appeals to non-skeptics.
• Skeptrack events must be more appealing to compete with interesting events on other tracks.
• Skeptrack content should be “ridiculous” so that it can attract non-skeptics.

Valid, constructive criticism is invaluable, especially when a group with goals is struggling to meet those goals.

Baseless criticism is often harmful and sometimes offensive.

I was offended by this review.

I understand that many people found it innocuous and even amusing. Perhaps my being is offended is related to my level of personal involvement given the examples chosen for the article. However, I do not believe that I am alone in thinking that changes like those suggested are unwarranted and that implementing them could move Skeptrack in the wrong direction. These decisions are the track director’s to make, but such public criticism has a way of creating pressure even when it is clearly unfounded.

Skeptrack is the product of year-’round hard work by track director Derek Colanduno and a dedicated staff, including Robynn (A.K.A. Swoopy) McCarthy, who directs a track of her own devoted to podcasting. They work closely with the Space and Science Tracks to create a well-rounded program. Many of us present on those tracks as well. In its second year, Skeptrack was given a room quite a bit larger than similar tracks to accommodate the volume of attendees it attracted the first. This, its third year, saw a daunting schedule which began at 8:30 am and did not end until between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am. The audience size varied by day, time of day, and other factors, but all events were well-attended and many were standing room only. In other words, the track is extremely successful in terms of attendance.

Extremely.

Tables for the organizations were set up - a great place for outreach. Here Kylie Sturgess minds the store while chatting with George Hrab and Mykel Alvis.

Despite this success, the title of the article suggests that the track is merely “preaching to the choir”. There is no evidence presented, not even anecdotal, to support this assertion. I have seen this in only one other place and the evidence presented there was limited to “I don’t think I would be interested if I wasn’t a skeptic.” Since we do not have a systematic analysis of the audience to measure the level of familiarity each attendee has with “the movement” and compare this with those ouside the room, we can only determine if the large crowds were mostly self-described skeptics using our personal experiences, which are dictated largely by what we choose to do and with whom we choose to interact.

Kylie Sturgess’s review describes some of the interactions I had during the conference which formed my opinion that Skeptrack is successful outreach. This view is shared by many and documented in reviews, the most moving of which is Brian Dunning’s discussion on Skepticblog. Brian expresses some surprise and great pleasure that the event was indeed not only valuable outreach, but “rivaled that of any other critical thinking conference” he’d attended.

Regarding competition with other events, indeed, Rebecca walked out of Mathematical Modeling Pitfalls about 20 minutes into it. Her departure was conspicuous to me because it was not long after Jennifer Ouellette had handed me the microphone and I was looking out at the audience. Rebecca could therefore not have seen first hand that there was still a line at the microphone when we ran out of time for the question and answer portion, which was allotted half an hour. The room, which seats nearly 300, was 80% plus full. The article does not state whether Rebecca attended the other talk or if that room was full, however, the Science Track room holds approximately 150. Even if full, the law of conservation and, yes, a little mathematical modeling, tells us the answer to her question, “How could a talk about calculus ever compete with a talk about [How to Raise a Mad Scientist]?” Apparently, quite well.

The article also fails to note that Skeptrack included a parenting panel of its own. “Raising Skeptical Geeks” was held in the Crystal Ballroom in front of a packed audience. That room seats approximately 1,000 people. Adam Savage’s time at the microphone was short compared to that of the other panel members, yet many, many people have commented that it was their favorite panel of the weekend.

During the convention, I participated in panels and talks about consumer skepticism, the psychology of skepticism, parenting, perception, education, sex, feminism, and, yes, calculus and mathematical modeling. Perhaps some people find those topics boring, but I do not and, judging from the sizes of the audiences I saw, neither do a great many Dragon*Con attendees. Some of those were standing-room-only. None of faces of the people I spoke with following any of the panels were familiar and I recognized only a very small portion of the audience members, if any.

Attendance at the “Blogging 2.0″ panel that Rebecca wanted to cancel in favor of attending a Robot competition was approximately 70%. This is on the low side for Skeptrack, but that is more likely due to the fact that it was held on Monday than due to any competing event. I moderated a panel during the parade, which is the most popular event at the convention. The audience for it was smaller than other events, but still quite large. I had the same experience last year. There were plenty of geeks to go around.

The article also claimed that many of the panels were “composed of fans and enthusiastic amateurs talking about the subjects that interest them.” I was confused by this. I am not familiar with the content of all of the tracks, but since the topic of the article was Skeptrack, I found this insulting. Although there were a few individuals placed on a some of the later panels at the last minute, usually replacing someone who could not make it, these could be counted on one hand and not done without thought to their likely contributions. The content was certainly not “fans and amateurs” just “talking about subjects that interested them.” I suppose one could describe anyone who doesn’t receive a salary for skeptical activism or science as technically “an amateur”, but then that would include half of the Guest list.

As with any endeavor, even a hugely successful one such as Skeptrack, improvements are possible. The article suggests that we replace what the dry, boring content with… well, I’m not sure. The approach to promoting the vaccine clinic was described as “embracing DragonCon’s crazy, pop-culture-obsessed energy” by creating the posters I described above. I do not want to minimize the success of the clinic as measured by the number of people vaccinated in comparison to the numbers usually seen by the CDC. Even without a cost-benefit analysis, it is clear that 200 people vaccinated in the middle of an epidemic is an achievement. However, the question of whether the posters drove those numbers is unanswered. They were seen by 30,000 to 40,000 people, but the number of people who see advertisements is no measure of their effectiveness.

How many of the 200 who were vaccinated were involved in setting up the clinic? How many were skeptics presenting on Skeptrack? How many heard about it while attending a Skeptrack event? The clinic was promoted in nearly every panel on the track and in some on the Science Track. The claim that “it worked” is untenable and the suggestion that Skeptrack needs to “get crazy” is unsubstantiated.

The list of questions at the end of the piece ask, “What can we do to get them to step inside? How many are interested in what we have to say? How many are skeptics who just don’t know it yet?” I think that Derek and his crew have answered those by offering content which clearly interests people, gets them to step inside, and, judging from the personal anecdotes of new “skeptics” I have met in the past year, informed people not only that they are skeptics, but that being a skeptic is cool, fun, and interesting.

We have observed Skeptrack’s success. There is absolutely no reason to think that the programming is boring other than Rebecca Watson and a couple of other people claim to be bored by it.

Instead of suggesting changes which could turn the boat around, perhaps the critics would benefit from emulating and accommodating the current model at other conventions. Create Skeptracks everywhere and shoot for the same level of success Dragon*Con has seen from this model.

Official programming begins Friday morning. If you can’t make it to Atlanta, presentations on Skeptrack will be live-streamed on the Skeptrack website. You can also watch it on Ustream.

The Skeptrack site includes a schedule in Eastern time.

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

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!

In about 45 days I will be heading to Atlanta for my second Dragon*Con. Three years ago Derek and Swoopy of Skepticality started what has become one of the major events for Skeptics with a “fan track” at “the largest multi-media, popular culture convention focusing on science fiction and fantasy, gaming, comics, literature, art, music, and film in the universe!” I will be joining a list of amazing people too numerous to mention for panels and talks on Skeptrack and the Science Track. I am very excited about this year’s plans and will provide you with more details about the events once the schedule is finalized.

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.

Activism is not easy. It is a lot like teaching. We do not do it for the money. That would be crazy, since most of us actually pay for the privilege of being activists and teachers, well, let’s just say they’re under-appreciated. We do it because we love it. When a job is intrinsically rewarding, it is hard to know when to stop. And we still need to eat and pay our rent/mortgages, just like everyone else.

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!

Posted October 31, 2009

I have intended to wrap up my Dragon*Con experience with a run-down of the panel discussions and talks I either participated in or attended. Since others have done that for me in the past month, a lot of this will involve links.

Darwin’s Bulldogs
The Skeptic Zone Podcast’s current episode (#54) includes a panel discussion on the Science Track which I found most enjoyable called “Darwin’s Bulldogs”.

NCSE T-Shirt I picked up at Dragon*Con

I think that all of the panelists were thrilled to share the Table with Genie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Dr. Scott and her organization are primarily responsible for the successful law suit against those attempting to inject “intelligent design theory” into biology classes in a public school in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2004. The result of this case was a clear legal labeling of this “theory” as religion, not science. So, she’s a bit of a hero to most of us who deal with evolution resistance in our classrooms.

Also on the panel are several other brilliant skeptics, all of whom I will mention shortly since I also shared the Table with them on other panels. Instead of summarizing the discussion here, I defer to the podcast where you can listen to it yourself — it really is a great discussion.

Luck, Amazing Coincidences, and Other Charm(ing) Delusions
My first duty at Dragon*Con was a wonderful panel discussion with Kylie Sturgess and Martin Bridgstock during which we discussed many common myths which have resulted from illusory correlations and other matters of “luck”. After a short introduction, Dr. Bridgstock discussed work by Richard Wiseman in which he asked people how lucky they thought they were, the measured just how lucky they actually are. You can guess the outcome.

Kylie talked about a review of the literature she conducted in an attempt to explain “full moon fever“. Of course there are many explanations for this effect, but the effect itself does not exist. (Click on that link, by the way. She managed to work in some ninja kitties!)

A favorite myth I spoke of is that sugar makes children hyperactive. This actually sparked some obvious frustration and anger from at least one audience member who expressed her skepticism during the Q & A which stunned me just a little. It was testimony to how strong these kinds of beliefs can be.

Skeptical Psychology and Skepticism in the Classroom
My last “job” was the Skeptrack panel which convinced me to attend Dragon*Con and my fellow panel members were moderator, Kylie Sturgess, Matt Lowry (Skeptical Teacher), Martin Bridgstock, and Point of Inquiry host (and CFI director), D.J. Grothe. The conversation followed an interesting path. After a discussion of how we each approach the challenge of teaching critical thinking to students who resist our epistemology, the audience seemed most interested in a topic which keeps surfacing in my own classroom: the poor learning strategies which result from outcomes-based education like the short-sighted, but well-intentioned No Child Left Behind Act. Unfortunately, teaching with the goal of improving scores on standardized tests does not promote learning, much less critical thinking. Although we did not propose solutions to this problem, we all agreed that this is an issue which needs some attention today.

Synesthesia-Fours are Red, Sevens are
Green, and Green Tastes Funny

How a synesthete with letter/color overlap might see written words

I was also excited to participate in a discussion of synesthesia on the Science Track. This panel was requested by several attendees and this year someone volunteered me for the task. At the time, I was schedule for more (and more demanding) talks than what ended up in the final schedule and, since synesthesia is a neurological condition, and neuropsych is only a small part of my training, I was nervous to handle it alone. Thankfully, Jason Schneiderman, a clinical neuroscienst, stepped up to the plate and took over. Joining us was the ever-brilliant Steve Novella, so who could complain?

I wrote a summary of the topic and included a few demonstrations I produced for the talk in a recent blog entry.

BSG: The Last Half Hour, or ‘They REALLY frakked the daggit!’
I am still unsure how I ended up on a “fan” panel, but it seems to fit. This discussion, which included fellow “Bulldog” Christopher Barrett, and A.C. Trenya, focused on two things related to the final moments of the popular show Battlestar Gallactica. I will spare you the spoilers and just say that two of us and our moderator agreed that the ending was inconsistent with the rest of the show (basically, ALL OF IT) and fairly anti-science. As a scientist and skeptic activist, the show’s ending really bugged me, so this was definitely a good outlet for my discontent.

The Large Hadron Collider and Armageddon? Don’t Panic!
Finally, although I did not participate in this Science Track event (it was a solo talk by Matt Lowry), I wanted to mention it because it was a great example of skeptic activism rolled into science education. Matt did a fantastic job of covering the basics of this incredible machine in layperson’s terms. He also addressed many of the arguments given by those who have asserted that the collider is dangerous. I learned a few things about what we have accomplished in recent years and just how small a black hole created by the collider would be, but I will go into detail since Matt covers the topic quite well on his own blog.

Comments for this page are closed.