This is the fifth in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
Here we have a panel discussion. All of the text in a given paragraph that follows a person's name (and a colon) is meant to paraphrase the points made by that person, with direct quotations marked where they occur.
Women in Skepticism Panel
Rebecca Watson (Moderator), Carol Tavris, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Pamela Gay, Ginger Campbell, Harriet Hall
Rebecca Watson runs Skepchick and is a member of the SGU panel.
Carol Tavris is a social psychologist dedicated to "run[ning] after pop psychology and stomping it to death".
Jennifer Michael Hecht wrote The End of the Soul, The Happiness Myth, and several books of poetry.
Pamela Gay writes the Star Stryder blog and cohosts the AstronomyCast blog.
Ginger Campbell is an ER physician who podcasts at the Brain Science podcast.
Harriet Hall is a retired air force colonel and a family physician.
Rebecca: Are men more skeptical than women?
Carol: "No."
Laughter. There is a show of hands, demonstrating that nearly half of the audience is female.
Carol: "The question has always been: 'Are men this and are women that?'" What we should be asking is: "'What are the circumstances in men['s] and women's lives that welcome them into a profession?'" The sciences haven't traditionally been welcoming to women; let's not confuse the environment with something inherent.
Rebecca: We do hear a lot that women populate the psychic conventions—but don't men populate the Bigfoot conventions? Why would women be interested in being here?
Jennifer: There's a community here.
Jennifer Michael Hecht goes on to make some comparisons to poetry conventions that went back and forth and that I honestly couldn't follow very well. (My apologies.)
Harriet: "The skeptic movement is open to everyone."
Pamela: You look at the skeptical cruises and it's all white men. "We need role models in our field." Why is the skeptic movement so slow to change? We need the old boys to die off.
Ginger: "I remember bring in medical school and having very few women to look up to." I was at a dinner with a bunch of guys and they were talking football. I made a comment about football, and it was not even acknowledged.
Harriet: I had this experience over and over again. A woman would say something and everyone would ignore her. A man would make the same suggestion and suddenly it was a great idea.
Carol: When you're the only x in a given group, anything you say will be attributed to that difference. You need to reach roughly a 30% market penetration before your individual talents are appreciated.
Jennifer: I recommend Annie Laurie Gaylor's book Women Without Superstition. And if you've read the Bible, you'll know that Job's wife as a striking voice of reason in that story.
Rebecca: What do we have to gain by increasing diversity?
Jennifer: People will listen to you if you are like them. By making this group more inclusive and diverse we can make skepticism in America reach a more diverse audience.
Carol: What do I gain by wanting to join a skeptical organisation? Feminism was inherently skeptical.
At this point, the panel begins taking questions from the audience.
Question: Has anyone ever discouraged you from being a scientist because you were a woman?
Jennifer: I was given a C by my high school physics teacher to prevent me from attending a good university.
Question: Could you elaborate more on the nature versus nurture of skepticism?
Carol: What you want more than a role model is a mentor. Your role model doesn't have to be your colour, your gender, your age. They just need to be doing something that you want to do.
Pamela: There was a study done in the physical sciences, recently. It found that women were publishing fewer, longer articles each year. Women put out three papers each year that got an average of ten citations each, while men put out ten papers each year that got three citations each. Women had fewer publications, but equal impact. We've changed how we judge these things as a result. The differences in how we do research leads to innovation in the field.
Pamela Gay is given the last word.
Pamela: "Find a woman. Drag her here."
For more discussion on women and feminism at TAM, I recommend reading Jen McCreight's take on the subject.
31 July 2010
TAM, Day One: Sean Faircloth
This is the fourth in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
I've seen Dawkins in the hall a few times, and based on the expression on his face I'm left with the impression that he isn't especially approachable. He will do a brief book-signing, but makes it clear (through Hal Bidlack) that he will not be taking pictures with fans. To be fair, having his picture taken with several hundred people would take quite some time.
Sean Faircloth
My first impression of Sean Faircloth is, believe it or not, that he is bizarrely handsome. He actually really looks like a politician—you know, one of those young film or TV politicians who are running for governor or some such thing. He's not (I checked IMDb), but I'm just sayin'.
My only real problem with his presentation is that it assumes (as would several other presentations to come) that the audience is American, an assumption that is not borne out by the diversity of the crowd.
Sean talks about the Secular Coalition for America and their lobbying efforts, and how difficult it is to advocate for the separation of church and state. He makes mention of David Vitter, an American senator who apparently stated or implied that opposing gay marriage was more important to him than providing hurricane relief, even if hurricanes the size of Katrina and Rita were to descend together upon the same metropolitan area.
Faircloth announces that he is going to talk about the Bible. He begins with the story of Abraham and Isaac, which provided him his first moment of religious doubt.
He comes down hard against sectarian schools and daycares, as they are not subject to the same health and safety laws, unannounced inspections, and the like that are required for secular child care institutions. Sean talks about a young girl who was left alone, in a van, in the sun, for two hours by a person working for a sectarian daycare. The child died. He cites another examploe, in which a young boy was left alone in a vehicle for ten hours. He also died.
In pre-Columbian times the Incas would kill children to satisfy their gods. Jessica Crank, 15, had a tumour the size of a basketball on her shoulder. Her mother didn't believe in science, and in the 21st century, she died suffering. "They call it faith healing," Faircloth says. "I don't call it faith healing. I call it faith killing." Where were the right to life groups in the case of these children?
Sean Faircloth then speaks of Father Shanley, a now-defrocked priest who allegedly attended man-boy love meetings. According to Faircloth, the priest's superiors knew about it, but they claimed that religious freedom mandates that they do by have to share this information with the authorities.
Sean contends that Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Ted Haggard, and their ilk have special rights in our society—that's why the Secular Coalition for America is so important. These men have the power to say: "You're a Jew. You're fired." That's not right.
He proposes a thought experiment. You are running for office. You have an excellent platform, and a high approval rating—but the first thing that will happen once your candidacy is announced is that someone in the media will Google you. And they will find that you've said this:
And even worse, you've said this:
It turns out that both of those quotations are from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and because of them and others like them he could not be elected today.
Sean Faircloth is a very passionate speaker. He believes that America's tax-funded public schools should teach the Bible. But they should also teach the Qur'an, and they should teach the constitution. That's how children will learn. "Which evolves? Which is based on barbaric violence and viciousness?" John Lennon's Imagine: "The people of the world know the words to that song."
He urges everyone to visit http://www.secular.org/. "You will see that we have a modest plan to take over the United States." Applause.
I've seen Dawkins in the hall a few times, and based on the expression on his face I'm left with the impression that he isn't especially approachable. He will do a brief book-signing, but makes it clear (through Hal Bidlack) that he will not be taking pictures with fans. To be fair, having his picture taken with several hundred people would take quite some time.
Sean Faircloth
My first impression of Sean Faircloth is, believe it or not, that he is bizarrely handsome. He actually really looks like a politician—you know, one of those young film or TV politicians who are running for governor or some such thing. He's not (I checked IMDb), but I'm just sayin'.
My only real problem with his presentation is that it assumes (as would several other presentations to come) that the audience is American, an assumption that is not borne out by the diversity of the crowd.
Sean talks about the Secular Coalition for America and their lobbying efforts, and how difficult it is to advocate for the separation of church and state. He makes mention of David Vitter, an American senator who apparently stated or implied that opposing gay marriage was more important to him than providing hurricane relief, even if hurricanes the size of Katrina and Rita were to descend together upon the same metropolitan area.
Faircloth announces that he is going to talk about the Bible. He begins with the story of Abraham and Isaac, which provided him his first moment of religious doubt.
He comes down hard against sectarian schools and daycares, as they are not subject to the same health and safety laws, unannounced inspections, and the like that are required for secular child care institutions. Sean talks about a young girl who was left alone, in a van, in the sun, for two hours by a person working for a sectarian daycare. The child died. He cites another examploe, in which a young boy was left alone in a vehicle for ten hours. He also died.
In pre-Columbian times the Incas would kill children to satisfy their gods. Jessica Crank, 15, had a tumour the size of a basketball on her shoulder. Her mother didn't believe in science, and in the 21st century, she died suffering. "They call it faith healing," Faircloth says. "I don't call it faith healing. I call it faith killing." Where were the right to life groups in the case of these children?
Sean Faircloth then speaks of Father Shanley, a now-defrocked priest who allegedly attended man-boy love meetings. According to Faircloth, the priest's superiors knew about it, but they claimed that religious freedom mandates that they do by have to share this information with the authorities.
Sean contends that Billy Graham, Rick Warren, Ted Haggard, and their ilk have special rights in our society—that's why the Secular Coalition for America is so important. These men have the power to say: "You're a Jew. You're fired." That's not right.
He proposes a thought experiment. You are running for office. You have an excellent platform, and a high approval rating—but the first thing that will happen once your candidacy is announced is that someone in the media will Google you. And they will find that you've said this:
The priests of the different religious sects dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight.
And even worse, you've said this:
Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies.
It turns out that both of those quotations are from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, and because of them and others like them he could not be elected today.
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession."
—Abraham Lincoln,quoted by Joseph Lewis in Lincoln the Freethinker
"If there is a God, he is a malign thug."
—Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
"I believe in an America ... where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice."
—John F. Kennedy
He urges everyone to visit http://www.secular.org/. "You will see that we have a modest plan to take over the United States." Applause.
"Life is either a great adventure or it is nothing at all."
—Helen Keller
25 July 2010
TAM, Day One: Michael Shermer
This is the third in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
I'm happy that I'm finally getting some of these posts up. There will be 'round about two dozen of them, but I'll keep them short: I figure that it will hold a reader's interest better to have several short posts than a few long ones. You hear that, Tracie? (Disclaimer: I love Tracie Harris. But she and I share a predilection for loquacity.)
Michael Shermer
Shermer opens with a short personal anecdote that apparently happened to him that morning. I believe that it went something like this: as he was about to exit from the elevator on his way to the talk, he realised that a woman was also exiting on the same floor; he gestured for her to go ahead, but the hand with which he gestured happened to be the hand that was holding his iPhone, which promptly leapt from his fingers and sailed directly into the crack between the elevator and the hotel floor, bouncing the rest of the way down the elevator shaft. He now finds himself sans iPhone. (He assures us that although sometimes he makes up some of the stories he tells, this one is absolutely true.)
Michael moves on to conspiracy theories. Was 911 a conspiracy? Yes! Nineteen members of Al-Qaeda plotting to fly planes into buildings without telling us first is by definition a conspiracy!
His talk is about the "believing brain". He calls our brains "belief engines". We form beliefs, and once we've done so we seek out reasons to believe as we already do.
Shermer discusses associative learning (e.g., Pavlov's Dogs). Using food to reinforce behaviour, he trained a pigeon to peck out certain keys. When food reinforcement is provided completely at random, however, the pigeons will develop bizarre behaviour patterns (what Shermer calls "superstitions") that they "believe" will result in food reinforcement.
Type One Error: a false positive; believing that you discern a pattern where none exists.
Type Two Error: a false negative; believing that there is no pattern where patterns do exist.
Which is more harmless, from an evolutionary perspective? There is a natural selection bias for seeing patterns. (This is something that Dawkins has discussed several times as well; he supposes that our over-active pattern matching may be responsible for the early development of religion.)
Shermer moves on to a discussion of priming. The audience is shown images comprised entirely of random noise, then we are primed to see images in them. We're told that some evidence suggests that the more out of control we feel, the more superstitious we are. A higher rate of failure apparently correlates with superstition.
According to researcher Susan Blackmore, those who believe in ESP are 70% more likely to identify objects in severely damaged/degraded images—but these people were not any more likely to correctly identify the actual objects in the picture. Intriguing.
Michael Shermer tells the audience that increased dopamine levels increases patternicity. The left hemisphere of the brain is better at making intuitive connections. The problem that we face is a signal-to-noise ratio. If that ratio is too low, type two errors result. If it is too high, you have madness. But if you get the ratio just right, Shermer argues that the result is creativity.
He shows us some optical illusions (demonstrating how easy it is to trick our brains) and examples of pareidolia and general apophenia (to show how our brains are tuned to see patterns that aren't there):
Shermer describes agenticity as the tendency to imbue inanimate objects or invisible actors with power over our lives. This is a common form of superstition.
We're natural dualists. Shermer mentions the films Freaky Friday and All of Me (a fairly good film, if you're a Steve Martin fan). The idea of one person's consciousness inhabiting another person's body seems fairly reasonable to us—which is quite bizarre from a monist or materialist standpoint. You can poke around in the temporal lobe to induce OBEs, déjà vu, etc. Pilots in training often pass out from excessive g-forces, and according to Michael 25% experience OBEs. We're able to imagine ourselves somewhere else (putting ourselves in someone else's position), and this ability (our theory of mind) may contribute to our natural dualism. (Visit the Everything Else Atheist for one of my favourite discussions on the problems with dualism.)
Michael talks briefly about confirmation bias before turning his attention back to priming. He plays the famous second verse of Stairway to Heaven, first forward, then backward without priming, and finally backward with priming. This didn't have a huge effect on me, as I was already familiar with this particular example of apophenia (and had thus already been primed), but judging from the audience's reaction I was in the minority.
If you've never heard Stairway to Heaven played backward, give it a listen!
One final note: Jen McCreight at Blag Hag discusses women and feminism at TAM, and she specifically calls out Michael Shermer for sexism.
This is the offensive clip in question:
I love The Big Bang Theory, but it has been criticised for heavy-handed stereotyping. And, to my mind, it is guilty: the female lead is hot, blonde, and fairly disinterested in science (although they do give her the equally stereotypical "street smarts"). But the show is equally guilty of stereotyping men! It is rife with fairly unattractive and nerdy men (Leonard, Sheldon, Raj, and Howard), fairly unattractive and nerdy women (Leslie), attractive and "stupid" women (Penny), and attractive and stupid men (all of Penny's friends, as well as her ex-boyfriend, Kurt).
I agree that the stereotypes of the "stupid hottie" and the "ugly smartypants" are pervasive in our culture. But, as a lifelong nerd, I would argue that they are also amply applied to men. Perhaps not equally, but amply.
I'm happy that I'm finally getting some of these posts up. There will be 'round about two dozen of them, but I'll keep them short: I figure that it will hold a reader's interest better to have several short posts than a few long ones. You hear that, Tracie? (Disclaimer: I love Tracie Harris. But she and I share a predilection for loquacity.)
Michael Shermer
Shermer opens with a short personal anecdote that apparently happened to him that morning. I believe that it went something like this: as he was about to exit from the elevator on his way to the talk, he realised that a woman was also exiting on the same floor; he gestured for her to go ahead, but the hand with which he gestured happened to be the hand that was holding his iPhone, which promptly leapt from his fingers and sailed directly into the crack between the elevator and the hotel floor, bouncing the rest of the way down the elevator shaft. He now finds himself sans iPhone. (He assures us that although sometimes he makes up some of the stories he tells, this one is absolutely true.)
Michael moves on to conspiracy theories. Was 911 a conspiracy? Yes! Nineteen members of Al-Qaeda plotting to fly planes into buildings without telling us first is by definition a conspiracy!
His talk is about the "believing brain". He calls our brains "belief engines". We form beliefs, and once we've done so we seek out reasons to believe as we already do.
Shermer discusses associative learning (e.g., Pavlov's Dogs). Using food to reinforce behaviour, he trained a pigeon to peck out certain keys. When food reinforcement is provided completely at random, however, the pigeons will develop bizarre behaviour patterns (what Shermer calls "superstitions") that they "believe" will result in food reinforcement.
Type One Error: a false positive; believing that you discern a pattern where none exists.
Type Two Error: a false negative; believing that there is no pattern where patterns do exist.
Which is more harmless, from an evolutionary perspective? There is a natural selection bias for seeing patterns. (This is something that Dawkins has discussed several times as well; he supposes that our over-active pattern matching may be responsible for the early development of religion.)
Shermer moves on to a discussion of priming. The audience is shown images comprised entirely of random noise, then we are primed to see images in them. We're told that some evidence suggests that the more out of control we feel, the more superstitious we are. A higher rate of failure apparently correlates with superstition.
According to researcher Susan Blackmore, those who believe in ESP are 70% more likely to identify objects in severely damaged/degraded images—but these people were not any more likely to correctly identify the actual objects in the picture. Intriguing.
Michael Shermer tells the audience that increased dopamine levels increases patternicity. The left hemisphere of the brain is better at making intuitive connections. The problem that we face is a signal-to-noise ratio. If that ratio is too low, type two errors result. If it is too high, you have madness. But if you get the ratio just right, Shermer argues that the result is creativity.
He shows us some optical illusions (demonstrating how easy it is to trick our brains) and examples of pareidolia and general apophenia (to show how our brains are tuned to see patterns that aren't there):
Some lovely shoes.
Quite the sexy lamp.
I found this: purportedly the source of the "lamp" image. Looks like a 'shop to me.
An impossible cube. Shermer actually showed a picture of a fellow building one in 3D!
The infamous face on Mars.
Anyone for a Virgin Mary sandwich? Sexy...
Shermer describes agenticity as the tendency to imbue inanimate objects or invisible actors with power over our lives. This is a common form of superstition.
We're natural dualists. Shermer mentions the films Freaky Friday and All of Me (a fairly good film, if you're a Steve Martin fan). The idea of one person's consciousness inhabiting another person's body seems fairly reasonable to us—which is quite bizarre from a monist or materialist standpoint. You can poke around in the temporal lobe to induce OBEs, déjà vu, etc. Pilots in training often pass out from excessive g-forces, and according to Michael 25% experience OBEs. We're able to imagine ourselves somewhere else (putting ourselves in someone else's position), and this ability (our theory of mind) may contribute to our natural dualism. (Visit the Everything Else Atheist for one of my favourite discussions on the problems with dualism.)
Michael talks briefly about confirmation bias before turning his attention back to priming. He plays the famous second verse of Stairway to Heaven, first forward, then backward without priming, and finally backward with priming. This didn't have a huge effect on me, as I was already familiar with this particular example of apophenia (and had thus already been primed), but judging from the audience's reaction I was in the minority.
If you've never heard Stairway to Heaven played backward, give it a listen!
One final note: Jen McCreight at Blag Hag discusses women and feminism at TAM, and she specifically calls out Michael Shermer for sexism.
The stereotype goes that women can [be] sexy/attractive/beautiful and stupid/ditsy/unscientific, or they can be smart/witty/scientific and frumpy/plain/ugly. This myth annoys the hell out of me, especially because it's so common.
This is the offensive clip in question:
I love The Big Bang Theory, but it has been criticised for heavy-handed stereotyping. And, to my mind, it is guilty: the female lead is hot, blonde, and fairly disinterested in science (although they do give her the equally stereotypical "street smarts"). But the show is equally guilty of stereotyping men! It is rife with fairly unattractive and nerdy men (Leonard, Sheldon, Raj, and Howard), fairly unattractive and nerdy women (Leslie), attractive and "stupid" women (Penny), and attractive and stupid men (all of Penny's friends, as well as her ex-boyfriend, Kurt).
I agree that the stereotypes of the "stupid hottie" and the "ugly smartypants" are pervasive in our culture. But, as a lifelong nerd, I would argue that they are also amply applied to men. Perhaps not equally, but amply.
24 July 2010
TAM, Day One: Opening Remarks
This is the second in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the previous post here. You can find the next post here.
For other TAM coverage, you can visit Hemant at The Friendly Atheist (who liveblogged TAM) and Jen at Blag Hag (who had commentary to add after the fact).
The Skeptics' Guide Live
It was awesome. You can listen to it here!
Opening Remarks
D.J. Grothe, Phil Plait, Hal Bidlack
While George Hrab was unable to attend the conference, his new album, Trebuchet, was played between talks, which was a nice touch. It has several amazing tracks, including my favourite, "Death From The Skies", which features Phil Plait discussing the many ways in which the world could end.
The opening remarks begin with Phil, who jokes that Las Vegas in July is akin to the surface of the sun. The former JREF president talks about growth in the skeptic movement. There are apparently more than 1,300 of us in attendance at the conference, which is heartening indeed!
D.J. comments that Randi is unavailable for the opening remarks, as he's currently doing an interview for Playboy. The mic is quickly passed to Hal, who promises some bad puns. He says that he is pleased to see so many newcomers, because we haven't heard his one good joke. (Spoiler alert: I still haven't.) According to Bidlack, "Mr. Randi once referred to it as homeopathic humour."
Levity wanes, and things turn more serious. There was a brief discussion of Randi's recent illness. Bidlack sums it up nicely: "Randi, working with science, kicked cancer's ass!"
"This stuff really matters," he says. Skepticism is important in so many arenas. He talks briefly about the magic dowsing device sold by British company ATSC, the ADE651, and his part in having the company shut down.
Like so many of the speakers at TAM, Hal Bidlack is very welcoming. Although I didn't get the chance to meet him personally, every person I know who's had the opportunity just loves the guy.
Hal reminds us to be kind to those who disagree. I could veritably feel the admonishment to atheists coming—this is apparently a fixture at TAM, as Bidlack is a deist. And I quote: "Mr. Randi is an atheist. I am not. ... But we both agree that Uri Geller is an ass."
Fair enough.
Hal advocates the "big tent approach" to skepticism—and I agree with him! I have several theistic friends who are otherwise excellent skeptics, and I wouldn't want to sour anyone on skepticism. At the same time, sometimes it's necessary to ridicule faith, and I'm fine with that, too—I think that faith is a dangerous way to go about deciding what to believe.
More on this later, when I discuss Phil Plait's talk, but I think that the diversity of voices in the skeptic movement that we have right now is important.
For other TAM coverage, you can visit Hemant at The Friendly Atheist (who liveblogged TAM) and Jen at Blag Hag (who had commentary to add after the fact).
The Skeptics' Guide Live
It was awesome. You can listen to it here!
Opening Remarks
D.J. Grothe, Phil Plait, Hal Bidlack
While George Hrab was unable to attend the conference, his new album, Trebuchet, was played between talks, which was a nice touch. It has several amazing tracks, including my favourite, "Death From The Skies", which features Phil Plait discussing the many ways in which the world could end.
The opening remarks begin with Phil, who jokes that Las Vegas in July is akin to the surface of the sun. The former JREF president talks about growth in the skeptic movement. There are apparently more than 1,300 of us in attendance at the conference, which is heartening indeed!
D.J. comments that Randi is unavailable for the opening remarks, as he's currently doing an interview for Playboy. The mic is quickly passed to Hal, who promises some bad puns. He says that he is pleased to see so many newcomers, because we haven't heard his one good joke. (Spoiler alert: I still haven't.) According to Bidlack, "Mr. Randi once referred to it as homeopathic humour."
Levity wanes, and things turn more serious. There was a brief discussion of Randi's recent illness. Bidlack sums it up nicely: "Randi, working with science, kicked cancer's ass!"
"This stuff really matters," he says. Skepticism is important in so many arenas. He talks briefly about the magic dowsing device sold by British company ATSC, the ADE651, and his part in having the company shut down.
Like so many of the speakers at TAM, Hal Bidlack is very welcoming. Although I didn't get the chance to meet him personally, every person I know who's had the opportunity just loves the guy.
Hal reminds us to be kind to those who disagree. I could veritably feel the admonishment to atheists coming—this is apparently a fixture at TAM, as Bidlack is a deist. And I quote: "Mr. Randi is an atheist. I am not. ... But we both agree that Uri Geller is an ass."
Fair enough.
Hal advocates the "big tent approach" to skepticism—and I agree with him! I have several theistic friends who are otherwise excellent skeptics, and I wouldn't want to sour anyone on skepticism. At the same time, sometimes it's necessary to ridicule faith, and I'm fine with that, too—I think that faith is a dangerous way to go about deciding what to believe.
More on this later, when I discuss Phil Plait's talk, but I think that the diversity of voices in the skeptic movement that we have right now is important.
The Amaz!ng Meeting
This is the first in a series of posts discussing The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which took place at South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, 8–11 July 2010. You can find the next post here.
This was my first Amaz!ng Meeting. In case you're not familiar with TAM, here's the descriptive blurb from randi.org:
At the conference, I met quite a few entirely awesome people, including James Randi (of the James Randi Education Foundation), Adam Savage (of Mythbusters), Phil Plait (of Bad Astronomy and the forthcoming Discovery Channel hit Phil Plait's Bad Universe), Steven Novella (of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and Science-Based Medicine), Bob Novella (also of the SGU), Brian Dunning (of Skeptoid and inFact), Jen McCreight (of Blag Hag), and D.J. Grothe (president of the JREF and host of For Good Reason).
I even met Scott Carnegie, a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics. You'd think that, being the organiser of the Winnipeg Skeptics myself, I would have met the guy before now. But apparently not. He also filmed me meeting James Randi, embarrassingly enough. (I assure you that before the camera was turned on, Randi and I had a deep philosophical discussion on the nature of skepticism 'round the world. And on the use of Photoshop.) I got Scott back, though, holding the camera while he had a much more substantive conversation with Phil Plait.
It was fantastic to meet so many influential people in the skeptic movement. Without exception, they were gracious, friendly, and approachable. D.J. Grothe was even fairly tolerant of me when I hounded him for a quick word and a photo while he was rushing through the halls of South Point, obviously hurrying to deal with some problem or other.
I actually felt quite bad about it, because I really didn't want to interrupt the guy—who was, in retrospect, obviously busy. I think that I also may have interrupted his conversation with Paul Kurtz! I approached him later on in the conference to apologise. He was very friendly. "Hey, don't worry about it," he told me. "We're all family."
This was my first Amaz!ng Meeting. In case you're not familiar with TAM, here's the descriptive blurb from randi.org:
The Amaz!ng Meeting is a celebration of critical thinking and skepticism sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation. Thinking people travel the world to share learning, laughs and life with fellow skeptics and distinguished guest speakers.
At the conference, I met quite a few entirely awesome people, including James Randi (of the James Randi Education Foundation), Adam Savage (of Mythbusters), Phil Plait (of Bad Astronomy and the forthcoming Discovery Channel hit Phil Plait's Bad Universe), Steven Novella (of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and Science-Based Medicine), Bob Novella (also of the SGU), Brian Dunning (of Skeptoid and inFact), Jen McCreight (of Blag Hag), and D.J. Grothe (president of the JREF and host of For Good Reason).
I even met Scott Carnegie, a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics. You'd think that, being the organiser of the Winnipeg Skeptics myself, I would have met the guy before now. But apparently not. He also filmed me meeting James Randi, embarrassingly enough. (I assure you that before the camera was turned on, Randi and I had a deep philosophical discussion on the nature of skepticism 'round the world. And on the use of Photoshop.) I got Scott back, though, holding the camera while he had a much more substantive conversation with Phil Plait.
It was fantastic to meet so many influential people in the skeptic movement. Without exception, they were gracious, friendly, and approachable. D.J. Grothe was even fairly tolerant of me when I hounded him for a quick word and a photo while he was rushing through the halls of South Point, obviously hurrying to deal with some problem or other.
I actually felt quite bad about it, because I really didn't want to interrupt the guy—who was, in retrospect, obviously busy. I think that I also may have interrupted his conversation with Paul Kurtz! I approached him later on in the conference to apologise. He was very friendly. "Hey, don't worry about it," he told me. "We're all family."
19 July 2010
Laws
In terms of the laws of physics, a divine lawgiver accomplishes nothing. There is a difference between descriptive laws and proscriptive laws. It is unusual for a criminal to be arrested for defying the laws of gravitation or thermodynamics.
The Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense
Crispian Jago, of the Science, Reason and Critical Thinking blog has nicely categorised pseudoscience into a periodic table:
It's also available on posters and t-shirts!
Tip o' the phial of P2E to Dustin Hildebrandt, who probably got it from Reddit.
It's also available on posters and t-shirts!
Tip o' the phial of P2E to Dustin Hildebrandt, who probably got it from Reddit.
17 July 2010
The Winnipeg Skeptics at The Amaz!ng Meeting
Five members of the Winnipeg Skeptics attended TAM 8 in Las Vegas last week: Donna, Grant, Scott, my wife, and myself. It was—wait for it—amazing!
Over the next few days/weeks(/months?) I'll be posting updates with my thoughts on all of the main-event presentations, but Scott has some quick video interviews up on the 'Tube right now! The Winnipeg Skeptics even got a shout-out on Bad Astronomy!
Without further ado, here's the quickie interview that Scott did with Phil Plait:
Way to go, Scott! For more of Scott's TAM 8 videos, you can visit his YouTube user page!
Over the next few days/weeks(/months?) I'll be posting updates with my thoughts on all of the main-event presentations, but Scott has some quick video interviews up on the 'Tube right now! The Winnipeg Skeptics even got a shout-out on Bad Astronomy!
Without further ado, here's the quickie interview that Scott did with Phil Plait:
Way to go, Scott! For more of Scott's TAM 8 videos, you can visit his YouTube user page!
14 July 2010
Organic. Again.
A new study was recently published in PLoS ONE, "an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication" (I like the sound of that!) investigating the environmental effects of "organic" versus conventional pesticides.
I've talked about organic agriculture before, so I'll cut to the chase:
If you want the CliffsNotes version, you can read about it in the CBC article that originally caught my eye. The full text is available online for free.
It's just one study, sure. One more study. There have been many. There will be many in the future. I think this lovely and eloquent quotation from one of my favourite science enthusiasts about sums it up:
I've talked about organic agriculture before, so I'll cut to the chase:
We found that in addition to reduced efficacy against aphids compared to novel synthetic insecticides, organic approved insecticides had a similar or even greater negative impact on several natural enemy species in lab studies, were more detrimental to biological control organisms in field experiments, and had higher Environmental Impact Quotients at field use rates.
If you want the CliffsNotes version, you can read about it in the CBC article that originally caught my eye. The full text is available online for free.
It's just one study, sure. One more study. There have been many. There will be many in the future. I think this lovely and eloquent quotation from one of my favourite science enthusiasts about sums it up:
Science. It works, bitches.
—Randall Munroe,
xkcd
13 July 2010
Why I Love Randall Munroe
Dear editors of Homeopathy Monthly: I have two small corrections for your July issue. One, it's spelled "echinacea", and two, homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos and your entire magazine is a sham.
05 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)