Scholarly Saturday night: Singing ’bout Darwin

Last night was the Concert for Darwin – a special event presented by Jefferson Pepper, Lauri Lebo and folks from the Central PA ACLU. PA Nonbelievers helped with ticket sales. It was held at the incredible Midtown Scholar bookstore in Harrisburg. It was quite amazing that such an intelligent and unique event took place inside a new venue for a successful, independent bookstore. If you ever pass through downtown Harrisburg, you will notice blight, crime, garbage and poverty. Yet, in midtown, around the Broad Street Market, there is occuring a revitalization. Thanks to the Harrisburg Community College’s downtown campus and other investments, this place is shaping up. I’ll be visiting the bookstore again and again for books (of course) and what will certainly be more outstanding events such as this.

It would be hard to top this. Lauri Lebo was jumping around, getting stuff ready, saying ‘hi’ and signing autographs of her book. She began the night by introducing a very special guest, Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Genie is a hero to so many of us. I was so, so pleased to meet her and have her back in Harrisburg for such a positive event. Genie played a pivotal role in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. Many of the plantiffs, including some of the kids, were in the audience this evening. Smiles were all around.

Lauri then introduced Jefferson Pepper who played solo and with his band folk and americana tunes that expressed the raw feelings many in the audience had about the state of American culture. I DO NOT like country music but the lyrics and themes felt very personal to me. Plus, I’m partial to a fiddle (being a violin player a while ago). The sound was excellent and I enjoyed every minute. Find out more about Jeff’s music here.

Next, was the remarkable and unmatched Dr. Ken Miller. I’ve seen him speak before and would so love to have him as a teacher. Well, he is a teacher every time I listen to him. Dr. Miller sat in the front row to watch the incomparable Baba Brinkman – evolutionary rapper. I have never heard anything like this. I only wish I had such an exceptional grasp of language and rhyme. I was blown away.

If you missed it, YOU MISSED SOMETHING. I think everyone had an outstanding time. We should all do this more often.

Intermission – Idea for new kids site

That creepy picture of JesusJayZombie is freaking me out so I needed a post to bump it down.

I should be reading some papers for school but I’m not. They are BOR-ING. Why is academic writing so boring? I can read some long-haired stuff but, man, this crap puts me to sleep.

I’m in the process of starting yet another blog. But, it’s not very bloggy just yet. I am constructing a web site for kids (middle readers) about monsters and spooky stuff.

Ghost hunting entertainment – Paranormal State lecture

Penn State’s Harrisburg campus hosted a presentation by Paranormal State’s Ryan Buell (with Sergey along) on October 2. The event attracted over 60 people of all ages. Primarily, the crowd was students, some with their parents. There were obviously several fans of the show.

I have never seen the show. I can’t be bothered with watching another ghost hunter show when there are already so many that have a similar formula – set up techie stuff, go into scary places, look all green and creepy on night vision camera and freak yourself out. I can’t see the value in shows about hauntings. It becomes formulaic, same old stuff.

I had several objectives in attending Ryan’s talk: to find out what makes his show different (if it is different at all), to see how the show and investigator group related to my alma mater PSU (if at all), and to see a presentation of evidence.

I got a lot of stories, some sound and video clips, pictures and more stories. To his credit, Ryan made clear that his idea of legitimate evidence is something that convinces them. That does not mean that it convinces you. “Nothing [he has] proves ghosts exists.” It comes down to a matter of trust – do you trust the person showing you the evidence has been truthful and interpreted it correctly – and belief in what you think caused it.

Skeptic meaning for the young

Many of today’s kids, at least my kid, seems to think it’s perfectly OK to have fun believing in ghosts, unicorns, witchcraft, demons, UFOs, vampires, and the like. They appear to understand that much of this is by choice and strictly for entertainment purposes only. It seems fair to think that childish things will eventually be discarded.

But, I’m concerned.

During a dinnertime discussion I pressed the issue about the lucky numbers that appeared in our Chinese fortune cookies. The concept of lucky numbers is silly. I got mad that my husband wanted to bait my rising irritation by saying how the restaurant lady must have been guided by destiny to pick our individual fortunes and lucky numbers in a mass produced, poorly tasting “cookie”. My older daughter (11) thinks of me as the party pooper on these topics by suggesting alternate ways of simply thinking about the issue that end up being the less mysterious interpretations.

Today, she said my skepticism “gets old”. Why don’t I just be open-minded and let people believe in unicorns if they want to? What’s the harm?

Well, she did need some schoolin’ on this point. Not being preachy but I did give her some less warm and fuzzy examples — the recent cases of children who died because their parents prayed and trusted their God to heal the sickness instead of doctors; how people still kill so-called witches in third-world countries; that people lose their life savings by giving it to psychics and astrologers instead of sound financial advisors; and of families torn apart by false memories of abuse implanted by therapists. Finally, I told her how mainstream parents are falling prey to the nonsense of the antivax promoters whose tactics allow for the resurgence of long-supressed childhood illnesses.

Would she rather believe in the truth or an interesting story? What about when it really counts?

This was the first that she made the connection between critical thinking and life-changing or life-ending situations. At least, I hope she did.

Skepticism in a nutshell

On episode #208 of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, the SGU folks took questions from the audience at TAM7. The best question, I thought, came from my friend Bruce who asked how to explain a skeptics convention and skepticism so that a teenager might understand.

I’d go farther than the teenager. How do I explain it to my Mom or Dad or coworkers who can see my enthusiasm for the skeptical community? They have no idea if it’s a religion, a fun hobby, a political party, or just an odd obsession.

I was not satisfied with the SGU rogues’ answers but there were a lot of pertinent points brought up – promotion of science and science education, examination of the paranormal, logical and critical thinking. I don’t agree with Jay who said that a short answer isn’t the best. I think at least a brief introduction is a good idea. A little bit is better than a full-out presentation with examples that might freak them out.

It could be there is no suitable in-a-nutshell explanation but I’m going to try.

“What’s a “skeptic”?”, asks an acquaintance/family member during a casual conversation.

“Well,” I begin, “A skeptic and the skeptical community are people interested in science who consider claims made by others using very careful collection and evaluation of evidence. The evidence must be better than a blurry photo or an eyewitness story on TV where the event or description can’t be verified, examined or reproduced. So, many claims about special medicines, miraculous cures, UFOs, conspiracies, psychic ability, supernatural phenomena, etc. do not withstand a skeptical inquiry because the evidence is such poor quality.”

If you have the opportunity, you might add, “Most people can’t take the time to check the so-called facts they hear on TV or in print, even the internet, but the skeptical community examines these claims critically and points out the fiction. I’d like to think Bigfoot or ghosts are what people say they are but, after decades of looking, there is just no body of scientific evidence for these things. A skeptic can expose hoaxes, tricks, scams or the misuse of facts. They can spot something that sounds like science but is really just a put-on that sounds credible. So, the skeptical community serves a very useful role in society because they question what many people just assume to be true. Exposing claims that are likely not true allows us to stop wasting time, money or effort on them.”

Did I go over 30 seconds? Don’t get me talking about this stuff, I’ll prattle on…

Pennsylvania bigfoot sighting – just a story?

Cryptomundo is reporting a bigfoot (or dogman-type creature) sighting the occurred in western Pennsylvania on July 10.

The report should say “Jumonville” not Jammonville. This area east of Uniontown is rugged and heavily wooded.

I won’t bother commenting on Cryptomundo anymore because my words get edited or might not even appear. But, I noticed, as usual, the Cryptomundo commentators are impressed with the witness and her report. They find her believable. Yet, they easily slip into paranormal mode – Bigfoot can have pointy ears, the odd traits mentioned make it more believable, etc.

I see several problems with the report. At 6PM, the alleged time of sighting when the woman was driving, it was not dark. She reports she was going 35 MPH. That’s not very fast – something approaching the car would either look human (bipedal) or not (quadruped). How did it run away? On two feet? Did it run like a human? The report doesn’t say.

I don’t understand how it managed to “leap across the trunk”. How did it get behind the car? Apparently, she did not hit it but successfully avoided it. There are scratches shown on the car. (So what – lot’s of people scratch their cars up.) There are several details left out. Then investigators from the PA Bigfoot research group followed up on the report. They took pictures.

The pictures are what got me a bit flabbergasted. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. It’s not the wilds as was suggested. Why was no one else around at 6PM on a Friday night?! The thing apparently ran from a school yard area through the parking lot of a convenient store. I have a harder time believing that there weren’t people around the store getting a pack of smokes, buying beer, picking up a pizza, hanging out. This makes no sense whatsoever.

The PA Bigfoot group has a closed forum and I am not currently intent on registering to listen in on speculation. This closed community aspect makes this type of forum nice for participants but excludes it from being scientific. The same can be said for Cryptomundo – a closed community ends up with warped thinking. No new input is incorporated. Mistakes are propagated, not corrected. They make little progress.

As a PA resident, I can tell you that bears are apparently all over the place right now. Did the witness see a bear? I can’t say. I think it’s more likely she almost hit a person. Having this close and unexpected an encounter with any living thing (except maybe a bug) is upsetting. If it was me, I would think that I would have chased after it, yelling to get people’s attention or at least go back and check to see if anyone else saw it. I’m sympathetic to this witness because she may think she saw something quite scary. I could and would not tell her she was crazy or wrong. This event was a matter of interpretation. So, nothing personal towards her, but the researchers’ intent is to consider this sighting as a real occurrence – outside of personal interpretation.

I’m not sure that’s possible. There is no corroborating evidence. It ends up only as a personal experience. I’m confounded about such reports. Because they make no sense and can’t be followed up, they actually have little value. Eyewitness evidence is weak and totally prone to error due to environmental conditions, physical constraints of the witness, emotional interference and the like. So, anecdotes can guide you where to look but can’t be used to support a claim such as this. If researchers really think there are big, unknown, physically implausible animals running into town on a Friday night, the Bigfoot organization needs to follow up better on this. I wish them well and I hope they find something better than a story.

Paranormal plagiarism

Some juvenile over at the Cryptozoology.com forum hijacked my post on Cryptozoology and Sham Inquiry without citing the web site. This is just another example of how paranormal communities, even so-called skeptical members, engage in unprofessional and childish behavior.

Regarding topics that rely on anecdotes and FOAF stories, there is unconcious plagiarizing and morphing of stories all the time. However, these get formalized as “facts” in books. I’m reading Randi’s book Flim Flam about how Charles Berlitz failed to check even the most basic claims about accidents within the Bermuda Triangle. This happens CONSTANTLY in popular paranormal stories. No one checks facts. The story elements added by the teller for dramatic effect become “facts” and get perpetuated in new books that copy the first! That’s why serious researchers seriously doubt this stuff.

There is a thing called primary sources, ever heard of them? For example, when I wrote a paper about Newton’s experiments, I was so paranoid about getting facts right that I got Newton’s own writings to reference. Then, I felt better about talking about the whole episode. I couldn’t just rely on the commentary others made about it, even experts.

I feel flattered (sort of) that my post got traction on the site. There are some good people and smart, thoughtful skeptics there. But, the fact that this goes on frequently and sources are not cited or checked out is so…Fortean. Fort took odd tales at face value. All the ridiculous stories he published credulously. Yo, people. That’s not science. It’s folklore, urban legends, old wives tales. For entertainment purposes only. Let’s step it up a bit.

Will The Othersiders just scare themselves?

The Othersiders is a new show on Cartoon Network where teen friends visit alleged haunted locations and perform so-called investigations, similar to the Ghost Hunters and Ghost Trackers. It’s fun to be scared and to imagine ghosts exists and places are haunted. I love all things paranormal and really wish  these supernatural concepts were supported by something more than good stories. Alas, poor ghost, I find popular ghost hunting activities extremely unscientific and self-deceiving.

The Othersiders will premier on June 17 – I have not seen any episodes yet (note the post date). From the website, we see they will be using the standard fair of sciencey-looking equipment – temperature indicators, electromagnetic field meters, night vision cameras (everything is in green), tape recorders.  Do they know what they are measuring or looking at? Since science has never described what a ghost should be or act like, why should one assume they are measuring the effects of a ghost?

There are also several other red flags on the website that suggest what the intent of this show will be. There is a ghost figure in the spinning night vision camera and other equipment, spooky sounds, “facts” about the places that are not facts at all but based on anecdotes, and the token skeptic who needs “hard core proof”.  The team members say “It’s real, it’s happening.” Sure it is, but WHAT is happening? I don’t think our interpretations will be exactly the same. However, I’m not in a creepy place at night expecting the unexpected.

Call me psychic (then again, please don’t), but I predict The Othersiders will follow the same formulaic pattern of all the other ghost shows. I bet I can make some spooky predictions about how it will go. See how many come true:

• Investigators will visit places already aware of the popular haunting stories of the place, predisposing them to expect an experience. They will know which areas have the best stories. Bet on them being uncomfortable in these locations. They have been primed.
• The focus will be on belief and terms like ‘proof ‘and ‘evidence’ will feed into that belief, not dispute it.  Stories and personal experiences will count heavily towards influencing belief.
• There will be a lot of “I don’t know what that was but it was very weird.” (Cue the jump to paranormal conclusion.) Token skeptic will be shaken up. It’s hard to be left out when everyone else is having fun with the story.

“After each investigation, we’ll put up our verdict and let you make your own decision,” notes the website. This is a standard disclaimer for all paranormal-themed shows. You decide (after we show you an edited, biased, unconfirmed version of the events). Remember, it’s not real. It’s an edited, manipulated situation on TV.

I find interesting how obvious it is when “paranormal investigators” scare themselves and each other. They have started with the assumption that what they are investigating is paranormal. Bad move, very unscientific. What is most disturbing about these shows is that they send a message to impressionable teens trying to make sense of the world – the paranormal is a genuine explanation. Instead of being happy with, “Gee, that was weird”, they assume, “It was a spirit that haunts this place.” After 200 years of looking for ghosts, we still lack substantial evidence for spirit entities  – the best we have are stories and personal experiences. If we just get more of that from The Othersiders, what a waste. We could sure use something different.

If I am wrong and The Othersiders promotes critical thinking and logical explanations, not the supernatural, I will certainly applaud the creators. So, watch it, look for these themes, and ask questions.

Questions: Are they promoting a pro-paranormal viewpoint? What are some more normal explanations for these occurrences? Are activities being manipulated – are you being primed for what to see and hear at the locations and from the instruments?  Are they so psyched about ghosts that they find every little movement and noise to be “paranormal”?  Do they consider those or discard them in favor of more interesting causes – like spirits? Are they just freaking themselves out?

Skeptic movement in flux

I’ve noticed over the past year, many changes in the skeptical community. There has been a huge surge in communication, podcasts and internet activity that allowed for growth and exchange among the 3 groups – Center for Inquiry (Skeptical Inquirer/CSICOP/CSI), Skeptics Society (Shermer’s Skeptic) and JREF (Randi’s). I always thought they each provided a different perspective and approached the philosophy with different tools and, certainly, different personalities. That is a great thing. What felt even greater was the recent sense that the cross-pollination could make for a united, more influential movement. Old wounds were being forgotten.

I’ve met lots of great skeptics over the past 10 years that I have been following these groups. It’s pretty awesome for us to be able to frequently come together in the same place. That’s becoming more and more frequent. We now visit each others neighborhoods (mostly in Las Vegas, I think) and mingle. Nice.

I don’t know what is going on at CFI these days. I’m skeptical of both sides (multiple sides, perhaps). See Hemant’s post on this. But, in this case, change is good. CFI needs a freshening up. Dr. Kurtz has great influence and vision but the guards must change. (25 years is the limit at any one job.) I firmly believe that organizations like this are HARD to manage. The ideas spark disputes and the opinions are contentious with all those geniuses in the room.

All I can say is, this is a fantastic community. I think we might have just turned and faced the same direction – forward. I hope so.

Edit: fixed some typos. 6/5/09

The red herring

Conclusion to “Sham Inquiry“
The coelacanth is a red herring

Mainstream science, which is respected and functions very well with its current methodology, excludes those fields who don’t pass muster. For a theory to be considered as an explanation for observations of the natural world, even the public realizes it ought to be scientific. Using supernatural qualities as necessary components in your theory will get you excluded from consideration outright by the scientific community. The public, on the other hand, finds the paranormal quite fascinating and is willing to give consideration to those that put on a good show.

Science shouldn’t loosen up and accept subjective evidence. When pseudoscientists can’t get in to the scientific “party”, they will continue to denigrate it. Many pseudoscience proponents will jump at a chance to show that science, up on the pedestal, has a flaw. At the same time, they want room made for them on the pedestal.

In researching three forms of sham inquiry for this project: cryptozoology, ghost hunters and creationism, I was amused to find one example used for all three to the same ends. In an attempt to showcase how orthodox scientists are wrong, proponents of ghosts, creationism and cryptozoology all cited the finding of the coelacanth fish in 1938. Warren [1] highlights that the discovery was unknown and unexpected. Therefore, he surmises, there may be many more unexpected findings left in nature to come to light, maybe perhaps we are just around the corner from scientifically proving ghosts exists. Creationists [2] love the prehistoric-looking fish because it appears to not have evolved – looking much like it did from the last fossil find 65 million years ago. If evolution is true, why didn’t it sprout legs and walk by now? The coelacanth is an iconic species for cryptozoologists [3]. Though it was not actively being sought, it still was vindication that an animal presumed to be extinct survived but remained hidden since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The finding of the coelacanth was not an example of how science as an institution or method is misguided. Instead, the finding of the modern coelacanth is a testament to the wonder of nature to still hold surprises and to the fast-thinking museum curator who preserved the carcass as best she could then contacted a genuine expert to examine it before declaring the jaw-dropping discovery. One can only hope if the Loch Ness Monster is found, someone will be that diligent instead of negotiating a fee for viewing the remains and finding a “scientist” who will say what they wish him to say.

It is not valid for pseudoscientists to say they are subject to discrimination. Revolutionary ideas can receive serious consideration and acceptance if they follow conventional science protocol. Einstein’s work on relativity is an excellent example. [4],[5] Self-promoting fringe scientists may think very highly of themselves but it appears there really aren’t many Einsteins out there.

Evidence must be considered on its merits and discarded if not persuasive. Once a researcher has fallen in love with his theory, he is blind to disconfirming evidence. When a whole career is built upon research into a promising theory, he is loath to discard it. A genuine inquirer has intellectual integrity; a sham inquirer mainly has a goal.

The commonest examples of suspension of reason are those that validate one’s deepest beliefs while offering an illusion of privileged, insider status [6]. Therefore, we see sham inquiry that doesn’t get to the truth but instead makes a case for some proposition one wishes to be true. The end conclusion is already decided and enforced by a purposely closed community. The public is a willing follower if the story sounds believable or if it conveniently supports their prior held beliefs.
—————
[1] Warren, J. (2003). How to Hunt Ghosts, Fireside.
[2] Issak, M. (2007). The Counter-Creationism Handbook, Univ of Calif. Press. p. 99.
[3] Coleman, L., J. Clark (1999). Cryptozoology A to Z, Fireside. p. 66-68.
[4] Gardner, M. (1981). Science Good Bad & Bogus, Prometheus Books. p. 5
[5] Popper, K. (1963). “Falsificationism”. Scientific Inquiry (1999). R. Klee, Oxford Univ Press. p. 66-68.
[6] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press.p. 92-94.