It was like I was driving tired and dozed off. On Facebook today I was told my tweets from Woodford were not helpful. I can't even remember what I wrote, but I was only voicing my personal opinions. I suppose if I want to be part of the public skeptical community I should be very careful about how I express my thoughts, but we all know I am not particularly good at this, so I think it might be best if I just keep quiet.
Really what is the point of being publicly skeptical? Is there any need for my personal opinions to be published when there are so many professional quality posts dealing with the issues I'm discussing? I think for now at least I will just step away from the skeptical movement and watch form the sidelines. I have work and professional development to worry about, a family to raise, and no patience for carefully researching and reviewing issues before I blurt out an opinion.
Apparently the someone on the AVN side used my tweets as evidence that skeptics were won over. I think I may have said something about giving the AVN a voice simply gave them an undeserved level of respectability. They were clearly delusional and illogical and placing them on a stage next to experts elevated their rants to the level of "opposing expert". I felt the professionals on the stage were far too polite and tolerant and many of the outrageous statements were accepted at face value and attempts to question those statements were shut down on the basis that the questions might be seen as "confrontational".
I didn't enjoy the session, I couldn't see any chance of persuading the true believers and being new to twitter I didn't have an appreciation for how widespread my opinion could be shared and misunderstood.
Maybe I'll wait until I can afford to go to TAM before I re-engage, but I think given the number of hours I have to spend working on work I won't be ready for that re-engagement for quite a while.
See you all when things quiet down.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Sunday, January 9, 2011
An interesting post on Skeptivism
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.
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.
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.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
P33 and Psychics are Equally Disgusting
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.
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.
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.