In my vanity googling hours the fifth page on the Skeptivism list was an article by James Cole at The Twenty First Floor arguing that Skeptivism should target organisations and high-profile individuals who have the greatest potential for harm. I have to agree, it is important to focus on the largest groups and avoid personalising attacks, but is there a case to be made for proportionate responses to low-impact individuals who promote sloppy thinking?
I think there are enough skeptivists out there to justify some effort being directed at low-level activism against even the smallest blogs/sites. Of course, its a fine line between representing reason and trolling or flaming, and obviously the rehtoric should be toned down to suit the size of the traget, but even an innocent comment founded on illogic or false premise needs correction.
The other, more important issue is that the "Big Guns" of piffle start somewhere, and who knows where the nest Merryl Dorey is going to come from. In this age of interconnectedness, google throws up the those mom blogs along with everything else the search terms hit, and just as there are low-level perveyors of paff, there are and should be low-level skeptivists who do what they can to correct illogic wherever it appears.
Jame's blog is Stuff and Nonsense.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Skeptivism is on Google!
Hey, I just searched Google for "skeptivism" and I've finally made it onto the one and only page of links that gets returned. Gave me a little twinge of pride. Now I have to actually come up with some content......
Well, at least I have proof that choosing a made-up word for the title of your blog helps with the Search Engine Optimization :)
Well, at least I have proof that choosing a made-up word for the title of your blog helps with the Search Engine Optimization :)
Too busy to be skeptical
I have been just too busy to be skeptical. Xmas has been a nice holiday, but there are so many things to do to enterian kiddies, and trying to organise our househld after a new supply of toys and games and clothes and food have arrived has turned into a week-long task! I think I am almost at the end of the tunnel, but there are still two rooms of disorganisation, and just between you and me, I don't think my plans will be any more successful this year than in years past.
I had a run in with my brother over the letter to the editor I wrote a couple of weeks ago, expressing my opinion that psychics who prey on the grief-stricken are as bad as the pervert who tried to gain notoriety by confessing involvement in the Daniel Morcombe case. I posted the published letter to Facebook because I was happy it made it into the paper, and my brother was outraged. that I would damage the people I know who beleive in psychics and use them to speak with their dead loved-ones.
My immediate respnse was "it's my facebook page" and it wasn't until I listned to his side of the story that I felt a png of regret for sending the letter. At least, I thought it was regret, but I think it is better described as empathy.
I understand the pain of losing a loved-one. I know I have my own pecadillos and if anyone shakes my world view I can get cranky or defensive, but I hadn't thought much about what upset a simple letter copuld provoke, and I feel compassion for people who I may have upset. I don't, however, think I did anything worng, and I don't think that ayone has the right to stop me publishig my thoughts.
I guess this just made me review my attitude to skeptivism, and I think it was a timely reminder that even whe you are right, even when what you are working to do right, you always hve to b aware of how others will react and ensure you have done what you can to be accurate, factual and polite. The level of politeness applicable may increase or decrease under different circumstances, but I think it is important to always have evidence that you were polite, acknowledge the impact of any hurt you cause, and move forward with a positive attitude.
This reminds me, I haven't read up on the Skpetics response to crticism over the Bent Spoon in 2010. I think that's a topic worth investigating. I'm hopeful it will all be resolved amicably. Surely we're grown up enough to do that.
I had a run in with my brother over the letter to the editor I wrote a couple of weeks ago, expressing my opinion that psychics who prey on the grief-stricken are as bad as the pervert who tried to gain notoriety by confessing involvement in the Daniel Morcombe case. I posted the published letter to Facebook because I was happy it made it into the paper, and my brother was outraged. that I would damage the people I know who beleive in psychics and use them to speak with their dead loved-ones.
My immediate respnse was "it's my facebook page" and it wasn't until I listned to his side of the story that I felt a png of regret for sending the letter. At least, I thought it was regret, but I think it is better described as empathy.
I understand the pain of losing a loved-one. I know I have my own pecadillos and if anyone shakes my world view I can get cranky or defensive, but I hadn't thought much about what upset a simple letter copuld provoke, and I feel compassion for people who I may have upset. I don't, however, think I did anything worng, and I don't think that ayone has the right to stop me publishig my thoughts.
I guess this just made me review my attitude to skeptivism, and I think it was a timely reminder that even whe you are right, even when what you are working to do right, you always hve to b aware of how others will react and ensure you have done what you can to be accurate, factual and polite. The level of politeness applicable may increase or decrease under different circumstances, but I think it is important to always have evidence that you were polite, acknowledge the impact of any hurt you cause, and move forward with a positive attitude.
This reminds me, I haven't read up on the Skpetics response to crticism over the Bent Spoon in 2010. I think that's a topic worth investigating. I'm hopeful it will all be resolved amicably. Surely we're grown up enough to do that.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Response to my letter to the editor
First time ever I had a response to one of my letters published in Sunday Mail. It was in support of the letter I wrote about in my last post:
Psychics should be registered
I agree with Braydan Wilson (Your Say, SM, Dec 26) on psychics. People who advise others for a fee - solicitors, doctors and accountants, for example - have to be registered by law. Yet anyone can claim to be a psychic, charge high fees and give people advice.
This is fraud and should be made illegal with harsh penalities.
The more upset and desperate people are, the easier prey they make for these heartless thieves.
In 1976, I made a $10,000 challenge to any psychic or clairvoyant to accept a very simple 10-point test to prove their worth. Despite being publicised many times, nobody has accepted because they realise they would fail.
Arthur Coghlan,
Tallebudgera Valley
It was heartening to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks psychics are nasty people, and obviously Arthur has been at this a lot longer than me, so props to him. What I'd really like to see is more letters in the major papers along these lines. We complain that media uncrtitically promotes these charlatans and deluded do-gooders, but we don't effectively use the same media to promote an alternative view.
Missed the Woodford Folk Festival because of rain and laziness. Have decided to work on a calendar of skeptical events I can attend and investigate. Will also collect and respond to stories in varous papers. I don't want to go too heavy on the skpetical investigation stuff since that is already well-covered by existing skeptical groups, but I do think there is room for increased coverage, and I'm debating if militant skeptivism would be justified. The idea conflicts with my goal for positive skeptivisim and skeptical charity, but I am somewhat frustrated by the limited postive coverage outside of the skeptical community.
Hoping to attend QLD Skeptics events this year, although I think Humanists are more aligned with my activisim ideas. Not sure what the relationship is between the state skeptical organisations, but surely Australian Skeptics should be an umbrella to the other groups. From what I can tell the Australian Skeptics could more accurately be called NSW Skeptics. Must investigate their structures, committees, AGMs and such.
Psychics should be registered
I agree with Braydan Wilson (Your Say, SM, Dec 26) on psychics. People who advise others for a fee - solicitors, doctors and accountants, for example - have to be registered by law. Yet anyone can claim to be a psychic, charge high fees and give people advice.
This is fraud and should be made illegal with harsh penalities.
The more upset and desperate people are, the easier prey they make for these heartless thieves.
In 1976, I made a $10,000 challenge to any psychic or clairvoyant to accept a very simple 10-point test to prove their worth. Despite being publicised many times, nobody has accepted because they realise they would fail.
Arthur Coghlan,
Tallebudgera Valley
It was heartening to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks psychics are nasty people, and obviously Arthur has been at this a lot longer than me, so props to him. What I'd really like to see is more letters in the major papers along these lines. We complain that media uncrtitically promotes these charlatans and deluded do-gooders, but we don't effectively use the same media to promote an alternative view.
Missed the Woodford Folk Festival because of rain and laziness. Have decided to work on a calendar of skeptical events I can attend and investigate. Will also collect and respond to stories in varous papers. I don't want to go too heavy on the skpetical investigation stuff since that is already well-covered by existing skeptical groups, but I do think there is room for increased coverage, and I'm debating if militant skeptivism would be justified. The idea conflicts with my goal for positive skeptivisim and skeptical charity, but I am somewhat frustrated by the limited postive coverage outside of the skeptical community.
Hoping to attend QLD Skeptics events this year, although I think Humanists are more aligned with my activisim ideas. Not sure what the relationship is between the state skeptical organisations, but surely Australian Skeptics should be an umbrella to the other groups. From what I can tell the Australian Skeptics could more accurately be called NSW Skeptics. Must investigate their structures, committees, AGMs and such.