Workshop: Skepticism in the Classroom

Matt engages the audience. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

Matt recapped the most important concepts from his piece last year and presented more of his fun and interesting demonstrations. I used to think that cognitive psychologists had all of the fun because we study the interesting ways that our brains and minds fool us and can blow those minds by showing them. However, after some thought I realized that the physics teachers I know have the coolest, scariest, ickiest, and most surprising demonstrations. They deal with the physical world and there are almost as many bizarre things in the physical world as there are in the mind.

No, I do not remember what I was saying when I made this face. Photo by Dean Baird (minor retouching and cropping by me)

I was a bit nervous about this workshop because some of the material I presented is very different from my usual “Oew” and “Ah” and “aHA!” stuff. In addition, its connection to promoting skepticism is distant, at least on the surface. The title of my presentation was Deep Thoughts: Facilitating Critical Thinking at All Ages. In teaching critical thinking, the age of the student is extremely important in determining methods and focus. For adults, the biggest roadblock to critical thinking is overconfidence. This is just a nice way of saying “arrogance” or “closed-mindedness”. The irony is that we humans are so overconfident that we think the term applies to other people and not ourselves.

For young children, there are few roadblocks. What we should focus on is guiding cognitive development in a way that minimizes overconfidence. In my opinion, the best way to do this is to encourage the practice of consideration and deep thinking. This, I suggest, is accomplished through discussion of philosophical questions.

I have yet to read a review of the workshop. However, the immediate feedback I received was very positive and I heard my words flowing from the mouths of others all weekend, including on the stage. It is entirely possible that others have been thinking about the same issues, but I choose to take it as evidence that my ideas were discussed and found worthy of some consideration.

A Short TAM9 Review

Unfortunately, I was still tweaking my workshop presentation and was unable to attend the other workshops. I caught only some of the activism workshop – the one I needed the most – but luckily there is a wonderful manual available which was produced by Desiree Schell and Maria Walters. Last year’s reception, which kicks off the official meeting on Thursday night, featured music and live interviews. This seemed to defeat the ‘meet and greet’ purpose of most attendees. The reception this year returned to the usual format of conversation, but there were so many people that it was difficult to find anyone. Friday morning JREF president D.J. Grothe announced the final headcount. Attendees, organizers, and presenters at TAM9 From Outer Space totaled 1652, approximately 300 more people than last year, which was 200 more than the year before.

In general, the long list of speakers booked for this year included the most inspiring scientists and science communicators in the skeptical community. The original keynote speaker, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a personal hero of mine. His talk repeated much of what he covered in his very long and satisfying TAM6 talk, but I never tire of the material or his presentation style. Unfortunately, the other keynote speech, delivered by Richard Dawkins, was as boring (to me, anyway) as Tyson’s was entertaining. I have never found Dawkins to be a dynamic speaker, but this was particularly snore-worthy. He chose to spend much of his time describing his soon-to-be-released children’s book rather than discussing anything of note. Likewise, I find PZ Myers’ style a little bit dull, but I usually enjoy his talks simply because he chooses to talk about some of the most interesting topics. This year is no exception. His was one of the few talks that I missed, but I am looking forward to his discussion of alien anatomy when the JREF posts video of his talk (they committed to making all of the content available online).

Every other talk (not including the Sunday Paper Session, which varied in quality) was fantastic.

Some of the highlights for me:

• Carol Tavris delivered a speech about reducing cognitive dissonance by first considering the target’s vantage point (i.e., empathy). This was probably the best speech I have ever heard, and I have heard a LOT of speeches and talks.


Dylan Keenberg, Sabrina Gibson, and me Photo by Daniel Loxton (minor touch-ups and adjustments by me)

• Dylan Keenberg, a former student and collaborator of mine, delivered a wonderful Sunday talk describing one method for talking to others (Rogerian argumentation) which is highly likely to reduce both cognitive dissonance and misunderstandings. The most important aspect of this method is, once again, empathy. In order to more than simply fake empathy, though, one must be open to the possibility that one’s current understanding is wrong. My informal polling of TAM9 speakers and other community leaders tells me that I am justified in feeling extremely proud.
  
  

  Dylan Keenberg and Daniel Loxton Photo by Sabrina Gibson (minor touch-ups and cropping by me)

  Daniel Loxton’s discussion of these two talks (Tavris’s and Keenberg’s) as well as the two which specifically addressed activism (one by JREF Communications Sadie Crabtree and the other by union organizer and radio host Desiree Schell) is much more thoughtful, thorough, and interesting than what I could write at the moment.

• Daniel also wrote about the panel to discuss diversity. In a nutshell, the discussion was quite a mess for the first half, but the more they discussed the more each clarified, and in some cases, changed their views until they settled on a middle ground that I think all could embrace. Essentially, they agreed that applying skepticism to a more diverse set of problems/questions/domains would result in a more diverse community without compromising the integrity of skepticism as a movement. Political, moral, and social ideology are ‘outside the scope’ of skepticism because they remove objectivity. In addition, untestable claims (e.g., “Does God exist?”) are off-limits because they cannot be addressed scientifically.

  I am always thrilled to hear D.J. speak about such things from a stage because he tends to be clear, firm, and directly on-message. Last year, for example, he made a point of asking nearly every speaker to clearly define the scope of their organization and each answered with some form of “scientific skepticism”. This year, he elaborated on this by noting that he strives for a diversity of religious views.

  However, I did not leave TAM9 with the optimism that Daniel Loxton left with. One reason for this was that D.J. made those statements while discussing “Diversity in Skepticism” with Debbie Goddard, Greta Christina, Jamila Bey, and Hemant Mehta. Debbie Goddard is the campus outreach director for CFI, a secular organization with a branch devoted to skepticism (CSI). The panel’s moderator, Desiree Schell, is firmly rooted in the skeptical community as the host of Skeptically Speaking and an occasional blogger on Skeptic North. The other three panelists are closely identified with atheism and, in my opinion, have contributed little, if anything, to skepticism itself. I kept wondering who this “we” was in the discussion (e.g., “We could offer…”).

  The conflation of atheism and skepticism is a very serious problem with dire consequences. The most important of these is the degradation of the integrity of skepticism itself. The scientific method only works when scientists are open to interpreting any result objectively – to consider all evidence with an open mind and to hold all conclusions tentatively. The conclusion that there is no God cannot be arrived at empirically, so it cannot be “the result of properly-applied skepticism” as some claim. I am very worried about this trend to conflate these two for several reasons, including the manner in which the majority of atheists talk to and about the faithful.

• Bill Nye’s talk was condensed from the longer talk he gave at the Skeptic Society’s Science Symposium last month. In his position as the executive director of The Planetary Society he is concerned with science education and the consequences of failing in this area. For this reason, he is another hero to me.
• The panel discussion of the future of space exploration was almost as lively as the diversity panel would be two days later. Most notably, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s verbal sparring with Lawrence Krauss left Bill Nye and moderator Phil Plait with little room to get a word in. However, Pamela Gay managed to do so by literally shushing Tyson – three times! For that, if not for the plea during her solo talk for all in the audience to be activists for education, made her another hero. Phil’s talk last year still rings in my years, so the odd man out on that panel – Lawrence Krauss – was the only one on the stage that I would not walk a few miles, breaking a path in the snow, to hear speak.
• Speaking of heroes, there were two announcements at TAM9 which deserve to be noted. One was that The Richard Dawkins Foundation has committed to fund child care at meetings and conferences like TAM. The other involves everyone’s hero, Genie Scott. At the end of a talk in which she described the parallels between evolution denial and AGW denial (described and discussed in a great post by Donald Prothero), she announced that the NCSE is beginning an initiative to fight climate change denial in public education.
• Finally, two Jennifers, Jennifer Michael Hecht and Jennifer Ouellette, merged poetry and popular culture with skepticism and science, respectively, in the most uplifting and inspiring ways. Hecht condensed a normally hour-long history of doubt into half an hour by speaking quickly, but this only enhanced the talk. Jennifer held a cultural mirror up to science and space exploration, showing clips and images from A Trip to the Moon to Doctor Who and beyond. These were as, if not more, intellectually fulfilling as the talks given by the psychologists (okay, I’m biased) and neurologists (Elizabeth Loftus, Richard Wiseman, Susana Martinez-Conde, and Stephen Macknik all spoke). Wiseman even introduced me to a new favorite ‘suggested lyrics’ video, so I think that I will leave you with that.

In the spring of 2009, one of my brainy students caught me in the hallway before class and pleaded, “Would you please give me something to tell these nutty people to calm down?”

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.