A letter to the editor of the Sunday Mail in response to reports of P33's insulting testimony:
I agree with David Murray (SM Dec-19) that P33 should face a severe penalty for lying in such revolting detail about his knowledge if the Morcombe case, but this attitude should extend to the cynical voltures calling themselves psychics who pester police and hound the families fo victims of crime. Recently a Gold Coast psychic had the gall to twitter that she knew the whereabouts of Danial Morcombe's remains. I do not know if she wasted police resources by reporting her "insights", but I do know she didn't organise a search to find the remains tweet about her success. Instead she, and all other psychics - whether deluded or fraudulent - brazenly publicise their guesses, often contacting distraught parents repeatedly to offer false hope. Even when they do not extort money for thier services they use the fact that they make a report to claim they "assisted police" in high profile investigations. These people deliver vague descriptions of their "visions" about bush or water, modify their stories to explain away failures, and never publicise their list of misses. They claim to give closure to distraught families when in fact they contaminate the memories of lost victims for self-agrandisement and, in many cases, profit. The only difference between psychics and P33 is the level of detail and the fact that psychics ask for money or publicity for their gruesome claims, raping memories for money and noteriety.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
Why Skeptivism Should Do Good
I was very disappointed with Rebbecca Watson's response to my question at TAMOz which wrapped up the Activism session. Rebbecca said that the Salvos closed down soup kitchens because they had gay volunteers (more on that later) and that the Salvos were not in fact a good organisation. This, precisely, was my point. The Salvos are NOT a good group. They are a religion whose members do some good, but those deeds are done to promote their church as a group for good. They have been successful. People in Australia love the Salvos, and even I am a fan (or was until they bad mouthed Tim Minchin's beautiful song on the Myer Xmas CD.
The point is, the Salvos may be bad, but their deeds make them look good. Skeptics generally are good, but they are seen as bad, and part of the reason is that their good deeds are either not seen, or seen as negatives. We tell people what not to do, we tell people they are wrong, we want this stopped and that outlawed. We set ourselves up as the naysayers, and what do we offer as tangible evidence in the fleeting gaze of the public eye that we are actually doing good?
I argue that doing good for good's sake is a simple and effective way to demonstrate that we are, in fact, good people, doing good work. We shouldn't ask how to increase skepticism, or how to make our complaints seem polite. For some part of our time together we should just do good.
There is no reason why the good can't be positive for the cause, but it is important it be two things:
1. Genuinely good work
2. Done with no expectation of a change in the recipient's attitude.
I have heard it argued that this would be the same as churches who propagate their belief through charity, and it would be unethical to copy churches. I counter with two facts - good work is good for people, and what is wrong with promoting the ideas we believe are so important? We would not force our ideas onto anyone - they would be free to ignore us, thank us or join us on their own. We would not use the gains from these works to build meeting halls or pay preachers, or generate tax-free income for our group. We would do good work. We would enjoy the benefit of the good feelings that come form doing good work. Others would benefit from our charity. The politics comes a distant second, and if we are able to point to this group as a way that Skeptics have done good for the community, then that is a positive we can use to answer critics who see us as emotionless, doubt-seeding naysayers.
Skeptic has negative connotations. Part of the reason for that is that Skeptics don't do very much other than be skeptical. That's fine for individuals, but as a group our goal is to share our beliefs and make a positive impact in the lives of skeptics. We can do that and be positive for the wider community. Not doing it simply because it would look like something a church would do is short-sighted, selfish and hypocritical. We argue that decisions should be based on rational thought and evidence, and I argue that there is plenty of evidence to support that doing good work is a good thing to do.
The point is, the Salvos may be bad, but their deeds make them look good. Skeptics generally are good, but they are seen as bad, and part of the reason is that their good deeds are either not seen, or seen as negatives. We tell people what not to do, we tell people they are wrong, we want this stopped and that outlawed. We set ourselves up as the naysayers, and what do we offer as tangible evidence in the fleeting gaze of the public eye that we are actually doing good?
I argue that doing good for good's sake is a simple and effective way to demonstrate that we are, in fact, good people, doing good work. We shouldn't ask how to increase skepticism, or how to make our complaints seem polite. For some part of our time together we should just do good.
There is no reason why the good can't be positive for the cause, but it is important it be two things:
1. Genuinely good work
2. Done with no expectation of a change in the recipient's attitude.
I have heard it argued that this would be the same as churches who propagate their belief through charity, and it would be unethical to copy churches. I counter with two facts - good work is good for people, and what is wrong with promoting the ideas we believe are so important? We would not force our ideas onto anyone - they would be free to ignore us, thank us or join us on their own. We would not use the gains from these works to build meeting halls or pay preachers, or generate tax-free income for our group. We would do good work. We would enjoy the benefit of the good feelings that come form doing good work. Others would benefit from our charity. The politics comes a distant second, and if we are able to point to this group as a way that Skeptics have done good for the community, then that is a positive we can use to answer critics who see us as emotionless, doubt-seeding naysayers.
Skeptic has negative connotations. Part of the reason for that is that Skeptics don't do very much other than be skeptical. That's fine for individuals, but as a group our goal is to share our beliefs and make a positive impact in the lives of skeptics. We can do that and be positive for the wider community. Not doing it simply because it would look like something a church would do is short-sighted, selfish and hypocritical. We argue that decisions should be based on rational thought and evidence, and I argue that there is plenty of evidence to support that doing good work is a good thing to do.
The Purpose
Skeptivism Blog is the place I will say what I think about Skepticism, Skeptics, the "Skeptical Movement" and its targets and goals.
Like it or not, regular people see the terms Skeptics and Skepticism as negatives, so I will, for the time being, label the activism I promote as Skeptivism (Skeptical Activisim) when it is your regular protest this, denounce that, support another skeptic kind of activity.
I will also note positive skeptical activisim, which is in fact my perference for activism, but I will identify it as such with terms such as Positive Skeptivism, Charitable Skeptivism, or Skeptical Charity. I beleive this is the most effective way of improving the image of skeptics, at least allowing us answer the attack made by many that skeptics never do anything positive and get their jollies y poking hoes in other people's fun.
I enjoy poking holes as much as the next skeptic, but I don't see why, if we're going to be a "movement" we can't have a charitable ar that just does good for the sake of good.
Like it or not, regular people see the terms Skeptics and Skepticism as negatives, so I will, for the time being, label the activism I promote as Skeptivism (Skeptical Activisim) when it is your regular protest this, denounce that, support another skeptic kind of activity.
I will also note positive skeptical activisim, which is in fact my perference for activism, but I will identify it as such with terms such as Positive Skeptivism, Charitable Skeptivism, or Skeptical Charity. I beleive this is the most effective way of improving the image of skeptics, at least allowing us answer the attack made by many that skeptics never do anything positive and get their jollies y poking hoes in other people's fun.
I enjoy poking holes as much as the next skeptic, but I don't see why, if we're going to be a "movement" we can't have a charitable ar that just does good for the sake of good.