tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28380732231933068962024-03-05T15:45:09.696-08:00Confessions of an Asshole Skeptic~~~~ "The woods would be very silent if only those birds that sang best sang." ~~~~ - Henry Van DykeKennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-32917253403961981442013-06-14T13:03:00.001-07:002013-06-14T13:03:59.839-07:00Buffy the Antivax SlayerInternet polls are as unscientific as a poll can be, but I do find it hard to believe they don't usually indicate the direction the zeitgeist is blowing. <div>The poll attached to this article on vaccinaton <span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">http://www.parade.com/21514/linzlowe/sarah-michelle-gellar-wants-to-spread-the-word-about-childhood-vaccinations/. Is at the very least encouraging. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">At the time I put in my vote the numbers were about 89% for fill household vaccination... Which while short of the requirement for communal immunity, is close</span></div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family: '.HelveticaNeueUI'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 19px; white-space: nowrap; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">One can only hope the tide has turned. </span></div>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-71267724658053940692012-04-18T12:22:00.003-07:002012-08-08T00:25:00.052-07:00A Tiny Lesson in Post Hoc Ergo Propter HocMy year and a half old daughter has become fascinated by what she calls "beeps." And yes, they are in fact beeps, she is just (understandably) not looking at the bigger picture. She'll get there. I don't expect her to be a critical thinker just yet.<br />
<br />
"Beeps" are the sound that is made by our apartment building front door when someone waves the lock-fob past the sensor. Many doors are like this. She takes great delight in it.<br />
<br />
Yesterday we were standing at the front door making beeps, and I started pressing the automatic door opener when she beeped the door unlocked. She was amused by this extra level for a while, but soon wanted the door closed. It does close hydraulically of it's own accord after a few seconds - it is on a timer.<br />
<br />
But that wasn't soon enough for her. She started beckoning the door to close. It wouldn't obey her. Eventually she asked nicely "peease?" (Which is "please" for those of you who don't speak her personal language - clearly it shares the same root as the English language derivative.) And the door shut.<br />
<br />
Oh my was she surprised and delighted! Clearly she now knew the trick. Obviously the door reacted to her pleasantry - it had closed, just as she wanted, immediately after her polite request.<br />
<br />
The next few times I opened the door after one of her beeps, she lead with "peease?" And the door did not obey.<br />
<br />
Somehow I don't think she quite "got" the take away in it's fullness, but she did eventually give up on "peease?" ....which upon further reflection may be something I must deal with further down the road.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-63769467085284234852012-03-04T20:54:00.000-08:002012-03-13T13:43:20.743-07:00Third Annual Cross Canada Skeptical SmackdownThe Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown is back… and this year more cities are participating than ever before.<br />
<br />
<br />
The CCSS is a British-style pub-quiz that occurs every year on or around Pi-Day (March 14th) in multiple locations across Canada with local and national bragging rights at stake.<br />
<br />
Form a team of up to four players and come down to the closest event near you. (Players are also welcome to come on down to the venue and form a team at the event.)<br />
<br />
Where and when is it being held?<br />
There are six events across Canada this year.<br />
<br />
As of this release some details are still TBD on some events, but if you keep your ear to the ground and follow your normal local skeptical channels, you should catch wind of the specific whens and wheres.<br />
<br />
All events will be occurring between Wednesday March 14th and Sunday March 18th specific times and places as currently confirmed are below:<br />
<br />
CITY VENUE DATE TIME<br />
<br />
Halifax TBA TBA TBA<br />
Check with local skeptical groups.<br />
<strike>Niagara Region Mahtay Café TBA TBA</strike><br />
Niagara Region Event Cancelled<br />
<br />
North Bay TBD TBA TBA<br />
Check with local skeptical groups.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ottawa Foolish Chicken March 14th 7:00<br />
<br />
Vancouver Billy Bishop Legion March 14th 7:30<br />
<br />
Winnipeg Norwood Hotel March 14th 7:00<br />
<br />
(NOTE: TBAs and TBDs will be updated here on this post as new information becomes available.)<br />
<br />
Participation is free.<br />
<br />
A new champion will be named this year as the champion team for the past two years running is missing a core member. Come on out and give it your best. Have fun an maybe walk away as the new national champion!Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-69116578860110330002012-02-15T13:04:00.000-08:002012-02-15T13:04:54.803-08:00With My Freeze Ray I Will....Now this is intriguing to me.<br />
<br />
The Skeptic Family blog posted this article this week about <a href="http://skepticfamily.com/2012/02/12/the-power-to-stop-time/">people who can stop wrist watches</a>.<br />
<br />
Growing up, my Dad was one of those people. He had a box of watches that would not run anymore in his bedroom. In my memory's eye there were a half dozen watches in that box.<br />
<br />
Unlike the situation in the Skeptic Family post, Dad's issue was with mechanical watches.<br />
<br />
I recall sitting on his bedd with those watches and trying to wind them and get them to work. They wouldn't even wind! Okay, so 35 years later I'm thinking - those watches probably didn't work because they were - ta-dah! - <strong>overwound</strong>.<br />
<br />
Dad eventually solved the problem when the earliest digital watches became available. I remember being very excited that he was getting a digital watch for whatever occasion it was - his birthday, Christmas, Father's Day. He has never looked back. In fact I think his current watch is a battery driven standard analog watch.<br />
<br />
But wait! There's more! It turns out that the ability to stop watches was inheritable.<br />
<br />
I used to stop watches just by wearing them too.<br />
<br />
As a child I don't know how many crappy watches I went through. Lots. You know the kind. Made mostly of cheap plastic, couldn't keep accurate time for more than 12 hours running. It's no wonder thos watches quit working. They were all but designed to!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/0/1/2/9/5/webimg/544951774_tp.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="150" src="http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/0/0/1/2/9/5/webimg/544951774_tp.jpg" width="200" yda="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I really only ever had two decent watches as an adolescent. The first was a Timex with (I have no idea why.) a Ritz cracker logo on the face. I wore that thing a lot, (Again I have no idea why.) and rather indiscriminately. It endured 'X' many games of Dodgeball, and went with me tree climbing and jungle swinging - which were both nearly daily activities year round in my semi-rural home domain. In winter it went sledding. As you can see from the picture, this really wasn't a sports watch. It took a beating and kept on... on, no... actually it didn't keep on ticking.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://bobbea.com/expo-86/night-swiss.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://bobbea.com/expo-86/night-swiss.jpg" width="151" yda="true" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The second watch of note was a Swatch bought at the Swiss pavillion at Expo '86. I don't specifically recall how it met it's fate, but clearly when it stopped working I saw a pattern. Just like Dad, watches simply stopped working when I wore them. Would I have noticed the pattern without his previous example? Probably not. But I did have the example and I jumped to a conclusion.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
By the time I was in University I had quit wearing watches all together. It was an obvious waste of money, 'cause I did them in like (ahem) clockwork. Funny thing is, I have roughly the same relationship with sunglasses. I generally buy either cheap sunglasses or don't bother with them at all, because I just can't take care of them. I have a head count where sunglasses are concerned. I know it's not 'cause of some weird power. I simply abuse sunglasses and they don't last, so why spend good money on them?</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I can't say why I didn't just do the obvious thing and switch to a digital. I had been so excited as a kid that he was getting a digital, and by the time I was a teenager digital watches were pretty darned cheap. I guess maybe I was attracted to the idea of this "special power" I had, and that switching to digital would be doing an end run around it and I would quit being special? I guess.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
So I quit wearing watches altogether. It's actually pretty darned easy to get along without a watch. There are SO many clocks in the world. When you don't carry one on you, you quickly get to know where all the local ones are, and habitually check them for reference even if you don't need to know what time it is this very moment. Even when you are somewhere unfamiliar you develop strategies. You begin to recognize where the likeliest places for clocks to be are, and I expect you also develop a pretty good internal sense of time.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Before too long, the assumed "fact" that I stopped watches faded into the background and not wearing a watch became habit. Times of course change. And one day - six years or so ago - I bought a cellphone. It, of course, had it's own internal clock. So now, why would I ever need a watch? I've got a clocked that is synched to Greenwich Standard with me nearly everywhere I go!</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Somewhere between having not wearing watches become a personal habit and the time I realised that I was a skeptic I totally forgot about my "special power." I didn't even think about it until I read the post on the Skeptic Family blog. Funny how these things go.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
So yeah, I severely doubt watches stop when I'm wearing them. I am all but certain it was little more than confirmation bias.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I'm not going back to wearing a watch though. I've got the cellphone.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I DO have a watch. It is actually a quite nice Rolex my Mom gave me for Christmas several years ago. I have worn it twice. Once to try it on when I first got it, and again just before Christmas this year, as a piece of jewelry for Jodie's company Christmas party. I didn't even wind it up. I just kept using my cellphone when I needed to know the time.</div>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-68266262981300996732011-11-29T10:53:00.001-08:002011-11-29T11:01:41.097-08:00Disseminating the Burzynski PlotObviously I haven't got a lot of time for skeptical activism these days. My position on Maslow's hierarchy has shifted since becoming a father. I'm not complaining, just stating a fact. These days all I can really manage is a trip to SitP almost once a month (which is mostly social in tone) and to organize the yearly <a href="http://assholeskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/cross-canada-skeptical-smackdown-2011.html">CCSS</a>, and an occasional blog post...usually one that is largely pointing out something that should get as much attention as possible - not that my minor readership really boosts that my much.<br />
<br />
This post is precisely that.<br />
<br />
Perhaps you've heard about Burzynski Clinic and it's current shennanigans.<br />
<br />
If you haven't then <a href="http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/11/burzynski-clinic-meet-the-streisand-effect/">read this piece by Scott Gavura</a> - yeah he gets a lot of love here - on Skeptic North. It does a pretty good job of summing up the details. Then, if you are "in" pass it on. Facebook, Twitter, Blog, Google+ - whatever. Just help make these bullies get their just desserts.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-2989267851553786942011-10-09T13:11:00.000-07:002011-10-09T13:14:39.950-07:00Who is more foolish...?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">Hey there, it's been a while. Life stays busy. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">But I do keep thinking of things I should blog skeptically about, I just have trouble finding the time to do so.</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">I recently received a rather ludicrous anonymous comment on <a href="http://assholeskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/08/mike-adams-wants-to-kill-your-kids.html#comments">this previous post about Mike Adams</a>. It is on one of my most popular posts, but you don't have to read the post in order to appreciate what follows. But the content of the comment (essentially a diatribe about how great Mike Adams is and how filthy-evil modern medicine is) is germane so I'll post it in it's semi-literate un-edited entirety here:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">Mike Adams rocks. A little liquid silver and I have been sick but once in 7 Years. I stop taking the flu shot and got well. Strange ain't. This old Mississippi girl listens to everything Mike Adams. If you look up what the flu shots for it would scare you. Most of my family and friends read Mike thanks to me and they trust him to. My dad would not listen and guess what I buried him 2 years ago. My daughter would listen until just the other dad. We took her to the doctor and the doctor said the other doctors had made her a drug addict.Now my daughter has to detox off of the garbage to great medical doctors gave her and will be going natural now. I wish more people would read Mike Adams, Dr. Mericola , and a whole host off people that are willing to really help you get well. People like you will never will see 100 plus. Your body is design to make it way passed 100 but thanks to modern garbage most of the people won't even see 80. Such a young age to die. Most people thanks to modern medicince are sicker, can't sleep with out meds, I could go on for ever at what modern medicine is doing for the people. Just read the side effects on one bottle. Then when the have to give you more meds for the side effect read it and when you have to take anther med for those side effects read the side effect again man a people would have to been very much in the dark to not listen to Mike Adams. I listen I am 54 years old And I am one of the healths people I know. Oh how I hope one day people like you will open you eyes to the Medicine people and see they are so trying to make you sick. If you are not sick they make no money. So PLEASE for your kids and all the people who love you listen to Mike Adams. He is one of the greatest men alive and he only cares about your health. Reading him is free so he makes nothing off of it like the doctors, insurance companies, Med companies and so on. Trust Mike Adams, he won't let you down.....</span></blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">I began writing a response to that, and before too long it was enough for a post in and of itself... so here we go, my response:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><span class="Apple-style-span">No</span><span class="Apple-style-span">t to go all broken record here, but why is it always the anonymous comments that border on illiterate? I mean, it's one thing to not proofread and then there is a level where proofreading would be pointless as the author doesn't grasp rudiments of spelling and grammar in the first place. </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">But simply being incapable of communicating in functional sentences doesn't disqualify one from being right. However, in this case, it seems like every sentence is burdened by a logical fallacy. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_uses_of_silver">Liquid silver</a>... has at best nominal efficacy as a disinfectant - possibly even hampering healing speed. And on top of that, there are some well-established deleterious effects to health. Funny thing, Mike Adams regularly rails against metal poisoning. Is seems that his discrimination as to which substances to fight for or against is based not upon medical value, but on the value he gains from products sold on his website. (Which I am not linking to here as to avoid giving him additional google-rank, but is easily found with any search for Health Ranger.) </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">Anonymous Mississippi Girl (AMG) provides a few anecdotal single data points as evidence. We are forced to take her at her word that she is being honest when she says she has not been sick in seven years. We also have to take into account whether she is being honest with herself. Is she counting an occasional seasonal-sniffle, or just knock-you-off-your-feet ailments? And does she even realize that she is filtering out the lesser illnesses if she is doing this? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">I do know what is in flu shots - indeed I did a lot of work on this very subject during the Swine Flu outbreak two years ago, including the post that spawned this comment - and thanks to my ability to read and sort through scientific data in a logical fashion I am not scared of what is in flu shots. In fact I am kind of glad I don't have to live my life frightened by demons in white lab-coats. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">"Most of my family and friends read Mike thanks to me and they trust him to." ...a quote by Obi-wan Kenobi springs to mind: "Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows the fool?" <i>(On a side note, it has always seemed to me that Lucas missed the mark with that quote by being too on the nose. It would have been far more elegant if the second half was "...the man who follows the fool" - if they are already a fool, then following a fool can only amplify it whereas being a potential non-fool is sullied by following a fool which is already a double-shot of dumb - not only failing to think for ones self, but by doing so in the footsteps of a fool.... but I digress.)</i> In this case though, it appears to be fools following a fool following a fool... multi-layered recursive stupidity. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">Dad died when he was somewhere north of 70 (Assuming he was 20 or so years older than AMG, who tells us she is 54 and he died 2 years ago.) Uh... so what? That is utterly meaningless. Again, it is a data point of one. How many people die before 70? Many. One more is an example of precisely nothing. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">I'm not even really confident what part of the daughter's story to criticize. "We took her to the doctor and the doctor said the other doctors had made her a drug addict." Uh... so which doctor is at fault here? Okay, I am being a tad deliberately obtuse here, I know that the first doctor mentioned is the alt-med "hero" here. While I could analyze this mess in more detail, I'll sum it up by pointing out that the underlying argument here is essentially the naturalistic fallacy. "Natural" is in reality meaningless as not only are medical therapies perfectly natural but even when you break down the meaning into the meaning alt-med proponents typically mean (IE. Only un-manufactured ingredients as they are found in nature - nothing processed.) then as many so called "natural" remedies fail by those standards as not. The position simply doesn't hold up. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">"People like you will never see 100 plus." Most people don't see 100 regardless of lifestyle. Indeed reports (anecdotal as they are) consistently come about surrounding just how unhealthy by the yardstick of common practice most centenarian's lifestyles have been. And really, I could care less as to how long I live if my quality of life sucks, so I'll worry about that as (and if) it approaches. Which brings us to AMG’s claim that: "Your body is design to make it way passed 100 but thanks to modern garbage most of the people won't even see 80." Which is, to not put too fine a point on it, bullshit. Before modern medicine people died much younger than they do today. Just look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy">the UN life expectancy numbers</a> and it is clear that a great number of industrialized countries have a life expectancy above 80. Canada is one of them, and while the US where AMG is from is only close, the average for women is above 80. Further to the point, looking at third world countries, the averages are dramatically below 80. Really, her contention is just completely fucking laughable. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">“I could go on for ever at what modern medicine is doing for the people.” Funny, I could say the same thing, except I would be saying what I mean to be saying, not the opposite. Sigh. Is it any wonder that people like this are dumb enough to fall for the crap Mercola and Adams flog? </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"> “I listen I am 54 years old And I am one of the healths people I know.” Call me when you are 80. :-)</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">“If you are not sick they make no money.” True. But that does not mean their intention is to keep you sick. Quite the opposite. The mechanic who can’t or won’t fix a car has no customers. The implication that doctors could successfully operate that way is absurd. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">“...listen to Mike Adams. He is one of the greatest men alive and he only cares about your health. Reading him is free so he makes nothing off of it...” Uh... wrong. AMG clearly has no idea about internet commerce. Check out Mike Adams’ Natural News website and full half of the real-estate on it is advertisement. And if I’m not mistaken, while it isn’t now, as little as two years ago you needed a subscription to his site in order to read the full version of his articles. (My memory <i>may</i> be faulty on this, but at least I am willing to admit to possible gaps in my position. But I seem to recall that when <a href="http://assholeskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/01/asshole-skeptic-honour-roll-3-revenge.html">Adams presumed to tell the world what skeptics really think</a> that the full post wasn't readily available to non-subscribers.) Add to that that he quite blatantly has a “store” on his site - which you can even get a discount from just by subscribing to his newsletter (again, he does not actually provide his info strictly for free.) – it is patently untrue that there is no profit motive for Mike Adams.
Anyhow, </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;"><br /></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: black; color: #f3f3f3;">I’ve wasted enough time addressing this asinine comment. I’m out.</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"></span></span>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-52006511255039437952011-08-18T09:12:00.000-07:002011-08-18T09:12:47.754-07:00Effective Citizen PolicingJust a quick note to acknowledge the effectiveness of one of David Brin's Transparent Society observations: on-line citizen policing. (Not just on-line in his prediction, but in this case VERY on-line.)<br />
<br />
Most skeptics will have heard of David Mabus, and probably know about the recent turns of event in his saga. But if not, <a href="http://skeptools.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/case-study-notorious-spammer-brought-down-twitter-tumblr-social-media-mabus/">Tim Farley has chronicled it very well</a> - as he was central to it. It is a good read in terms of events in the skeptisphere and as an example of citizen policing... or hobby-level detective work (though that phrase seems a little diminishing.)Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-4790048953749434592011-08-07T21:19:00.000-07:002011-08-07T21:19:24.201-07:00Parte IncognitaFor the record...<br />
<br />
We shall see what happens in the next little while here, but I think that my head space has changed enough - or more accurately, <em>clarified enough</em> that wiping the slate clean here and starting over is a possibility.<br />
<br />
I probably won't. But in the time since DBAD and in the recent blood-feud over the common-ground between skepticism and atheism, I think I need to consider taking some stuff right off the table... not that many people are reading it here, but still.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong, I am still on the "we need a spectrum of voices and communication styles" side of the argument, but I think my more strident opinions are too easy to take the wrong way and I should consider striking them from the record or maybe even starting fresh. Probably not a new blog entirely, but we shall see.<br />
<br />
These are uncharted waters for me.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-87453660607035574322011-08-05T01:18:00.001-07:002011-08-05T01:18:59.112-07:00People too cocky about their memory, study finds - Health - CBC News<p>Really, truly.</p> <p>Our minds are faulty. We have to keep at it to maintain discipline and good work-arounds.</p> <p><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/04/memory-beliefs.html?ref=rss">http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2011/08/04/memory-beliefs.html?ref=rss</a></p> Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-43896684255995067782011-06-10T15:50:00.001-07:002011-06-10T15:50:38.037-07:00Placebos as Medicine: The Ethics of Homeopathy<p>Just yesterday I was at the pharmacy for the first time since I began self-identifying as a critical thinker.</p> <p>The care the pharmacist took in explaining the use and interaction of the three drugs I was prescribed thoroughly impressed me - even in the haze of sedation I was still in the middle of. Fortunately Jodie was there to retain the actual instructions, because my focus was elsewhere in my delirium.</p> <p>Addled as I was, I was still capable of reason. And I found myself thinking that that attention was, in its own right, an aspect of placebo - the non-specific effects of practitioner to patient interaction, to be more precise. That led me to wonder what is new with my friend Scott Gavura, Blogger at Science Based Pharmacy, Skeptic North, and Science Based Medicine, as well as the only pharmacist I know.</p> <p>I was too out of it to actually follow up yesterday. (Scott if you are reading this, I'll Tweet/Facebook soon.) But this morning, there in my RSS feed, was one of the more thought provoking articles on homeopathy, placebo-effects and ethics that I've ever read. And it was written by Scott.</p> <p>Article is attached. Check it out.<br></p> <p><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/placebos-as-medicine-the-ethics-of-homeopathy/">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/placebos-as-medicine-the-ethics-of-homeopathy/</a></p> Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-73316289936325168042011-05-27T12:16:00.001-07:002011-05-27T12:16:17.481-07:00CONTROVERSY: How to build bridges and trust with people who don't agree with you yet<p>Some interesting perspective and commentary from Paul at Save Yourself.</p> <p>So true. Confrontations are pretty unproductive. Particularly to the confronted.</p> <p>ControVERSY on the other hand can be compelling, interesting and entertaining. That may well be part of why people get so easily pulled into those fetid pits of mental vacuity - conspiracy theories - without ever considering that they are little more than beliefs "unsullied" by facts.<br> </p> <p><a href="http://SaveYourself.ca/290">http://SaveYourself.ca/290</a></p> Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-81558918797845744432011-03-18T23:45:00.000-07:002011-03-18T23:45:08.156-07:00The Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown - 2011Once again the Cross Canada Skeptical Smackdown is finished for the year. (And this year it truly was Cross Canada.)<br />
<br />
<br />
Last year it was really the “Western Canadian Skeptical Smackdown” with the only cities participating being Edmonton and Vancouver. But in 2011, seven different cities at least toyed with the idea. (Three did not actually have events for a variety of reasons, but we do hope they are all able to overcome their complications and participate next year.)<br />
<br />
The four cities that were involved were: Vancouver, Edmonton, Ottawa and Halifax.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpPTb1BOUwk2cqjATS06D2lt4s-uIWTTO1QWHlKLcI3noWPQIkJ9kV3mC3etWyNr1P3Ms3C5Wu9346n7k3fO81hp6oUpTO67Jml8u93T7T0RR7FV9TiSQxQVrYPH3QBhEKJ9j2ufl41AE/s1600/awaiting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpPTb1BOUwk2cqjATS06D2lt4s-uIWTTO1QWHlKLcI3noWPQIkJ9kV3mC3etWyNr1P3Ms3C5Wu9346n7k3fO81hp6oUpTO67Jml8u93T7T0RR7FV9TiSQxQVrYPH3QBhEKJ9j2ufl41AE/s320/awaiting.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Vancouver competitors await the opening gun...</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Halifax joined (making it a coast to coast event) with mere days to go, and as I understand it, the CCSS became the ice-breaker at the first ever Halifax SitP! (Haligonians please feel free to disabuse me of this notion if I am wrong.)<br />
<br />
Vancouver’s event saw some real drama as the local lead changed back and forth more than once, and first place was determined by a mere two points. One team dropped out after the first round (having only received two points) and a table of legionnaires who had not come for the quiz, found themselves asking for spare answer sheets by the second round so they could play along.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1cTL_0L4JqJcIkWT09MD-VOu4CF7xr8gY6vtBc8SQyue-Jipo4I5HFutZtTj4VINzMk3t4loIcf2PxbRKnvNLXJLUjWzZscXDJlxvPTAdX8DVWAVusLlMkEfYFR53yn0NxeJnKM9th9k/s1600/host.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1cTL_0L4JqJcIkWT09MD-VOu4CF7xr8gY6vtBc8SQyue-Jipo4I5HFutZtTj4VINzMk3t4loIcf2PxbRKnvNLXJLUjWzZscXDJlxvPTAdX8DVWAVusLlMkEfYFR53yn0NxeJnKM9th9k/s320/host.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yours truly outlines the rules.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Quick rewind: The CCSS is a British style pub-quiz in five rounds focusing on science and skeptical subjects. 20011 was its second year and I dare say it is looking good already for year three. (If you think you might be interested in hosting an event in your city next year, do not hesitate to contact me (Send an email to my garbage email account – I check it irregularly – kgoodkey (at) hotmail (dot) com. You may need to be patient and persistent as sometimes I do go long periods without checking.)<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDAAqDJD8oMCaCyyJVezsfDDtnYJdCikDysv9V38mcwTkYmc0k4HUgvb2Ypqwe0guFtC5OTdDpf3SmrGFQzW433h_zHQALT8_sXGYe3JeDnS6yEnjmxGo2OkUgNZzgub_Oo0Fe5vtXCHo/s1600/questions.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDAAqDJD8oMCaCyyJVezsfDDtnYJdCikDysv9V38mcwTkYmc0k4HUgvb2Ypqwe0guFtC5OTdDpf3SmrGFQzW433h_zHQALT8_sXGYe3JeDnS6yEnjmxGo2OkUgNZzgub_Oo0Fe5vtXCHo/s320/questions.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The correct answers are announced.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>If you’ve been following along… which I know is only a dozen of you… you know that last year in Vancouver we had a group of local skeptical heavy-weights banded together to make a dream team – “The Big Wang Theory.” And they kicked ass, winning the national title… which is nothing more than that – empty bragging rights. The question here in Vancouver was “were they going to reunite this year to defend their title.” It was a tightly guarded secret. Even I didn’t know until the last of them walked through the door 20 minutes to game time. Once again, they truly were the team to beat, but this year proved considerably harder. They lost the lead in the second round and didn’t get it back until the fourth, and in the final round there was real suspense - - did the upstart (and formed randomly there in the room that evening before the game!) “Everyone but Susan” manage to dethrone the champs?<br />
<br />
As I mentioned above, it was a mere two point difference this year – the equivalent of one costly wrong answer in the fourth round – but Big Wang Theory did manage to hold on to their title locally.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpfLHc6OZNMFkVlNhxL7zhGedYAehJcZ8rDNOTj64T-JHll0dmsa6LARwpdHJe51ptPwf2PVmNUlD6-OAlS_1aex41I9HQQoLHdTeSmcdxsR-NCU8ot0jzEzemh4CkZROYbYVlcnhHj3Q/s1600/winners.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpfLHc6OZNMFkVlNhxL7zhGedYAehJcZ8rDNOTj64T-JHll0dmsa6LARwpdHJe51ptPwf2PVmNUlD6-OAlS_1aex41I9HQQoLHdTeSmcdxsR-NCU8ot0jzEzemh4CkZROYbYVlcnhHj3Q/s320/winners.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The thrill of victory - Big Wang Theory</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
This year, unlike last year, where both events were held simultaneously, each city ran their event on a day and time of their choosing over the course of the (loosely speaking) weekend. All those events are now over and the scores have been compiled. There is some explanation worth adding at the bottom – hence the asterisks.<br />
<br />
Big Wang Theory - 75.5 (VAN)<br />
Everybody But Susan - 73.5 (VAN)<br />
Chernobyl Babies – 69 (OTT)<br />
Skeptics Not Septics - 64 (OTT)<br />
Occam's Mach 3 - 63.5 (OTT)<br />
Team Sexy - 60.5 (VAN)<br />
Magnitude - 58.5 (OTT)<br />
The Haligonians - 57 (HFX)**<br />
Skeptical Believers - 56.5 (VAN)<br />
Alliance of Unholy Eggheads - 56.5 (VAN)<br />
Critical Mass - 55.5 (VAN)<br />
13.37.Pi - 53 (EDM) *(70)<br />
Three Wise Women and the Guy - 48.5 (EDM) *(64)<br />
Chaos Riders - 44.5 (EDM) *(58)<br />
<br />
*Due to time constraints the Edmonton event had to skip the fourth round (Too bad, it was my favourite!) The bracketed scores are what each Edmonton team would have finished with if they maintained the same percentage of right and wrong answers in the fourth round as they averaged in the other four rounds.<br />
<br />
**The Haligonians – the sole Halifax team – was comprised from the entirety of Halifax SitP attendees that evening. As mentioned above it was used as an ice breaker with people coming and going throughout the event and answers being agreed upon by the ever morphing group as a whole.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje55Ldumr0Elcc0A-YXK1tXJJlOULPmTihgOBVkHt4zvHQ3nJ7PMmglg1poFbj5U5LsO-AWyadAusnfWxEJ7VTryugJ5XleXkaHaYBe-cwILFtPLn1Y0cHyKJ6gbax_TOxX4hqY2ye2iM/s1600/defeat.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="179" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje55Ldumr0Elcc0A-YXK1tXJJlOULPmTihgOBVkHt4zvHQ3nJ7PMmglg1poFbj5U5LsO-AWyadAusnfWxEJ7VTryugJ5XleXkaHaYBe-cwILFtPLn1Y0cHyKJ6gbax_TOxX4hqY2ye2iM/s320/defeat.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The agony of defeat... Everybody but Susan narrowly misses winning the national title.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-8972903770810434782011-03-16T10:46:00.000-07:002011-03-16T10:46:21.385-07:00Four Dark Horsemen Brush on Past....I am amused.<br />
<br />
Sonja McLeod has posted scientifically legitimate information on her <a href="http://littlemountainhomeopathy.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/natural-treatment-of-radiation-nuclear-fallout/">Little Mountain Homeopathy</a> Blog.<br />
<br />
Whatever you do, don't tell her. She may feel the need to remove it.<br />
<br />
Okay so quick bit of background.<br />
Japan: Earthquake - arrrrrrgh!<br />
Japan: Tidal Waves - Aiiieee!<br />
Japan: Nuclear Power plants in jeopardy: Holy mother... have we learned nothing about nuclear power safety management?<br />
<br />
So it certainly seems if you are following the news that while this situation is very un-cool (no pun intended) at Fukushima Daiichi, that the chances of serious amounts of fallout reaching our shores is currently very small, and there is every reason to expect that chance to dwindle. Now, do not conflate that statement with the idea that there will be no effect on people half a world away from the plant. No doubt someone will eventually do the math and come up with some estimate like (I am totally making this number up based on nothing more than a report I read on Chernobyl some years after it happened.) "The average lifespan on earth will be 7 minutes shorter as a result of Fukushima Daiichi." <br />
<br />
In any case the point being that there is no current reason to be taking potassium iodide in B.C. That part she gets wrong (and if you read the comments it is because "What the CBC says is not gospel to me!" - fair enough... but she's walking up to the paranoia threshold.)<br />
<br />
It is also clear upon reading that she is more in favour of other alternative means of preventing radiation (including x-ray) damage... of course, right at the bottom - she could not resist.... homeopathy.<br />
<br />
Ugh.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-35733010892455418362011-02-08T09:29:00.001-08:002011-02-08T10:23:09.959-08:00I'm still looking for the place where he's a Dick...<a href="http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/02/survey-says-i-might-be-a-dick/">Interesting piece on Skeptic North</a> this morning.<br />
I think my headline kind of sums up my position well.<br />
How exactly is he being a Dick? Is the simple fact he approached a relation with this argument the reason? It seems so.<br />
I've said before that being a jerk about skepticism is best left behind when talking with those you love. Erih sucessfully does this. His argument is clear, direct, well reasoned and even tempered. <br />
As skeptics we must be able to approach those we care about most. It doesn't mean we will be successful, but if we can't try to nudge them, the people who trust us the most, in the direction of reason, then.... I don't know what, but then something is fundamentally wrong, don't you think?<br />
Eric does everything right here. If this constitutes being a dick, then we truly must all be dicks, or do nothing at all.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-68288286080773869402011-02-04T09:06:00.000-08:002011-02-04T17:54:40.800-08:00Quit boring me please!Skeptics are not scientists. There are scientists who are skeptics but skeptics are not scientists.<br />
We are NOT doing science. Our role is to communicate science to the public - largely at a grassroots level. For the most part that means talking to people at their level, touching the message in terms that speak to them.<br />
<br />
I've said this all before.<br />
<br />
I just read a post by a blogger who I have some personal connection to who time after time writes the most soulless, robotic feeling posts. I don't wish to call them out personally - this isn't about that. I don't want to get petty with the in fighting. <br />
What it is about is that my ire has been tweaked. <br />
<br />
We are NOT communicating in scientific journals to scientists. Very few non scientists have any patience for flogging through BMJ abstracts. Skeptical outreach cannot read like that. It must entertain as much as it informs. <br />
<br />
Many of us skeptics are outrageously enthusiastic. Enthusiasm is fun and infectious - write like that. Many skeptics are fantastically clever, capable of great wit - write like that. Many skeptics are masters of untangling mysteries. That is compelling! (How many books, films, & tv shows are about mysteries?) Write like that! People respond to values-based language. You can write like that without misrepresenting facts. Write like that!<br />
<br />
For crap sake! Quit doing a disservice by writing in a tone intended for a minute specialized audience. I know you feel the need for precision and specificity. Newsflash: the public could not care less. The scientists have done their job. You don't have to do it over again. What you need to do is translate it. Simplify it. Make it entertaining - for a large diverse audience.<br />
<br />
Put some life into it!Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-33727419495321635832011-01-11T10:28:00.000-08:002011-01-11T10:29:51.520-08:00Asshole Skeptic Honour Roll #7 - Justified DisgustIf you haven't heard <a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/to-vaccinate-or-not/20110107-19i9a.html">Tracey Spicer's discussion with Meryl Dorey</a> about anti-vaccination and the declaration by the BMJ that Andrew Wakefield is a fraud on Australian radio, you have to do yourself a favour.<br />
<br />
So often false balance is given to the opponents of reason. You can't say that here. It feels a little dirty that Spicer cuts Dorey off, but why give her any more opportunity to publicize her website? Why give her the opportunity to gish-gallop away from the facts?<br />
<br />
Ah... how refreshing.<br />
<br />
For that I put Tracey Spicer on the Asshole Skeptic Honour Roll.<br />
<br />
On a related note... check out <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/01/05/ac.autism.wakefield.intv.cnn">Anderson Cooper serving Wakefield himself a nice helping of derision</a>. Do you get the feeling that beneath his well justified ire that Anderson is enjoying the shit out of himself? "I'm not here to have you pitch your book. I'm here to have you answer questions." Tee hee.<br />
<br />
And more... "<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/01/05/ac.autism.wakefield.intv.cnn">we believe in facts here at 3-60</a>."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/01/05/ac.autism.wakefield.intv.cnn">Not Wakefield specifically, but more of the pastiche</a>. You know - the FACTS.<br />
<br />
Oh wait! <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2011/01/05/ac.autism.wakefield.intv.cnn">Some Doctor on (no-longer a) Doctor action</a>.<br />
<br />
I could keep on posting links from the same series of related stories, but they are all on the same page as the videos above.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-81657701393142550422011-01-03T08:07:00.001-08:002011-01-03T21:04:19.633-08:00Star Wars vs. ArmageddonCourtesy largely of Phil Plant, there is a habit among skeptics to malign the bad science of Armageddon.<br />
<br />
This chart puts it in starlight relief... as bad as it's science is, Armageddon only gets as much wrong as the widely beloved Star Wars gets right.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.thehighdefinite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ZZ5EAF3005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" n4="true" src="http://www.thehighdefinite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ZZ5EAF3005.jpg" width="353" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Image from <a href="http://www.thehighdefinite.com/">The High Definite</a>.</div><br />
Sent from my HTCKennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-33154802582435944592010-12-22T17:00:00.000-08:002010-12-22T17:01:02.385-08:00An Open Letter to BonoHey.<br>So we've been having a one sided conversation for approaching 30 years now.<br>U2 is undoubtedly the most important band in my life, and you have been many things to me including idol and insufferable. At least you have an awareness and sense of humour about the latter. (Unlike that prat Sting who is second only to George Lucas in the degree he has ruined the piece of my youth that he also made so tremendous.)<br>I appreciate and even admire the work you do, but at times I do kind wish you'd just STFU - case in point, your TED Talk. Fuuuuuuuuck.<br>And specific to this season, I laugh overtime I hear the words "Tonight thank God its them instead of you." It always sounds just a bit meanspirited to me - which is not only out of character, but utterly opposed to the actual intent, I know.<br>I kind of suspect that if we were to discuss a range of skeptical subjects my opinion would descend, for at the very least your faith.<br>But... I just wanted to say...<br><br>THANK YOU FOR TELLING OPRAH TO STICK IT.<br><br>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-48677761776289524832010-12-21T00:58:00.000-08:002010-12-21T12:41:58.997-08:00Holiday Christmas Shopping - Scienterrific Books!!!I mentioned previously that I was going to be a guest on <a href="http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/">Skeptically Speaking</a> again. The live show was Friday, and is now <a href="http://skepticallyspeaking.ca/episodes/90-holiday-book-shopping-guide">available for download with links to all the many books discussed</a>.<br />
<br />
As always the show was fun to be on. I wish we could have got more discussion in than we did, but it was a very full show as it was.<br />
<br />
I often come out the other end of these events feeling like I was at best a shotgun of information. Perhaps I had some impact if I was aimed at the appropriate target, but even then I was all over the place. So I figured I'd take a little bit of time to mention my books (as well as the books I had on my shortlist that other guests spoke about.<br />
<br />
When I was asked to be on the show I polled some friends as to what books I should talk about. Only one made the final list, but several appeared on my shortlist and I'll touch on them below. I automatically nixed all Sagan books. I figured he was a shoe in - and sure enough two Sagan books were mentioned by other guests. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Contact-Carl-Sagan/dp/0671004107"><strong>Contact</strong></a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469"><strong>Demon Haunted World</strong></a>. I also considered the <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Cosmos-Carl-Sagan/dp/0345331354"><strong>Cosmos</strong></a> companion, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brocas-Brain-Reflections-Romance-Science/dp/0345336895"><strong>Broca's Brain</strong></a>.<br />
<br />
First up, my actual four picks for the show:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767908184"><strong>A Short History of Nearly Everything</strong></a><strong> by Bill Bryson</strong><br />
<br />
I mentioned on the show that when I was asked to do the show I polled a few friends to see what they came up with. I actually didn't use a single one of their suggestions except this one - which I had already thought of. But <em>every single one of them</em> included this in their list. I was actually surprised that none of the other guests mentioned it.<br />
This is totally gateway-drug territory. I don't think I've ever read a science book that covers so much in such an enjoyable fashion. It's very much 'sci-light' but that is it's charm. Since it's publication it has gone slightly out of date - as I mentioned on the show the first two chapters alone have information that has changed since the book was written, but errata for that and other mistakes is <a href="http://errata.wikidot.com/0767908171">easily available on-line</a>.<br />
While Bryson does get into a patina of explanation of science that ranges from the beginnong of the universe to the evolution of man, the heart of this book is really the stories behind the discoveries. He delves deep into the quirks of the scientists and the history behind those who made parallel yet unheralded discoveries or those upon whose gigantic shoulders the heros of science stood upon.<br />
It is at the same time funny and fascinating... something I'm informed that Bryson fans find to be his stock-in-trade, though I must admit that after trying several of his other books based on the promise of this one, I haven't found a single other one of his books that I've been able to finish.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/basic/book_detail.jsp?isbn=0738201448"><strong>The Transparent Society</strong></a><strong> by Dr. David Brin</strong><br />
<br />
David Brin is serious man-crush territory for me. I think he is the greatest living science fiction writer, he maintains an <a href="http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/">excellent blog</a>, and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/cab801">YouTube channel</a>, has a resume that includes CalTech and the JPL, had the jam to follow in Asimov's shoes and (ulp!) contribute to the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061056391?tag=f0cd4-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0061056391&adid=1GRHKGM7BDMZDYRRGF4N&">Foundation series</a>, and building upon the thinking in the Transparent Society has become one of the world's leading voices in the on-going discussion about privacy, transparency and freedom.<br />
<br />
I hardly know where to begin with this book. It covers a lot of territory and it's hard for me to talk about it without drifting into my own feelings about the issues herein. Some of it is scary - but that is exactly why it is important. Being over 12 years old by now there are parts of this book that are self-evident - but that is part of it's strength. You find yourself looking at the things he has got right and considering the portions that most rub you the wrong way with greater gravity.<br />
<br />
I think this book is important to a world that is filled with citizens in denial and/or paranoia and not enough in a well reasoned middle.<br />
<br />
Wikipedia sums it up with quotes from Brin, that the book is ultimately a proponent of a world where: <br />
<blockquote>"most of the people, knowing most of what's going on, most of the time," would only be an extension of what already gave us the Enlightenment, freedom and privacy. By comparison, he asks what the alternative would be: "To pass privacy laws that will be enforced by elites, and trust them to refrain from looking at us?"</blockquote>Brin is also the originator of the term "<a href="http://issuepedia.org/CITOKATE">citokate</a>" (I've lost track of whether it came from <em>Trasparent Society</em> or his blog first.) Which every skeptic should have in their vocabulary.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.faber.co.uk/work/arcadia/9780571169344/"><strong>Arcadia</strong></a><strong> by Tom Stoppard</strong><br />
<br />
The thing about Arcadia that I most failed to illuminate on the show is that it is a work of such rich complexity that subsequent readings (or viewings - it is a play, after all) never fail to open up new layers of understanding.<br />
Tom Stoppard is one of the truly most amazing playwrights of our time. While the average Jane may not be familiar with his name, they more than likely know of a film he won an Academy Award for - <em><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zojRt5RY-6E">Shakespeare in Love</a></em>. The whimsical, multi-faceted treatment he gives the Bard is akin to the reverence he gives mathematics (and thermo-dynamics, and chaos, and fluid-dynamics, and determinism, and and and....) in Arcadia.<br />
The play actually takes place in two times (but the same place) simultaneously at a country house in Derbyshire, as a set of modern academics attempt to untie the events of roughly a 180 years previously which the audience is also party to and see unfold in tandem. All kinds of clever elements connect both times, but the favourite has got to be one of the simplest - a live pet turtle who roams freely on the desk that makes up the primary set-piece. The turtle is the same one in each time-period, simply 180 years difference in it's age.<br />
No real spoilers here - this is a play that needs to be discovered. And should it coax you to explore the nature of re-iterative mathematics in the process, so much the better.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780143038627,00.html?strSrchSql=Physics+of+the+Buffyverse/PHYSICS_OF_THE_BUFFYVERSE_Jennifer_Ouellette#"><strong>The Physics of the Buffyverse</strong></a><strong> - by Jennifer Ouellette</strong><br />
<br />
Here's another excellent gateway-drug book. I suppose it's rather self-evident that being a Buffy the Vampire Slayer fan is a useful prerequisite (though I suppose not entirely necessary - but one would have to ask "why would you bother?") to reading this book. In fact, a warning is certainly in order. If you are a Buffy fan who is not complete on the two TV series (the comic books do not factor) then this book <em>will</em> spoil key plot details right through to the final season of each, and it won't waste much time getting around to doing so, so don't even tease yourself it you are serious about not getting spoiled.<br />
<br />
I think I may have done this book a disservice on the show. Like <em>Brief History...</em> it is pretty much sci-light. But Ouellette does a better job of getting into the finer points of the science science she covers than Bryson does. I know a fair bit of general science, and I learned from this book. Sometimes the Buffy-based examples actually give a perspective that helps clarify some details of physics that isn't quite so intuitive, and in other cases I simply learned some basic trivia facts that had previously passed me by - for example, I had no idea that elements above Iron were heavier than their atomic number, while those below were lighter.<br />
<br />
In Buffy-speak: This book is big on the easy-learny.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to the other books of note...<br />
<br />
I included <a href="http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120137"><strong>Imagining Head-Smashed-In</strong></a><strong> by Jack Brink</strong> in my end-of-show honourable mentions. Very cool book. Sort of forensic archeological historic storytelling about the buffalo hunters of the Northern Great Plains - specifically at Head-Smashed-In-Buffalo-Jump.<br />
<br />
My fellow live panellists (as opposed to the pre-recorded ones - the other possible parsing of that phrase is too much to bear) each chose a book I want to single out.<br />
<br />
Nicole Gugliucci - <a href="http://noisyastronomer.com/">the Noisy Astronomer</a> - selected <strong>Dr. Phil Plait's </strong><a href="http://www.penguin.ca/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780670019977,00.html?DEATH_FROM_THE_SKIES%21_Philip_Plait,_Ph.D."><strong>Death from the Skies</strong></a><strong>,</strong> which is a metric fuck-ton of awesome. It's the book that inspired Dr. Plait's TV show <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/bad-universe/">Bad Universe</a> and is one of those rare laugh out loud science books. He looks at a dozen aspects of astronomy through the lens of a Hollywood conceit - "the world is going to end because of 'X'" - and then looks at the real science behind it. For a related but entirely separate taste, check out <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/movies/armpitageddon.html">his analysis of Armageddon</a>. Indeed I had this book on my original four list, but figured the astronomer should get to talk about the astronomy book, so I put up no fight and replaced it with <em>Arcadia.</em><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.opendoorpsychotherapy.com/">Dana Blumrosen</a> chose <a href="http://rebeccaskloot.com/the-immortal-life/"><strong>The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks</strong></a><strong> by Rebecca Skloot</strong>, which I haven't read, but has been on a long list of "I must get around to reading that" titles since I heard about it and Henrietta Lacks on <a href="http://www.radiolab.org/">Radio Lab</a>'s (which everyone should listen to) <a href="http://www.radiolab.org/2010/may/17/">Famous Tumors</a> episode.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN_bZvzrOU6fX7FCcn1-Ro7pL4stafktOpdkDy2629YMsZdYkBj3D8gUAv-WJDGOgreqK1YEHWea9JXp7LHnPDJZg8VE7soT3h1_wQ6nB_C9e-MmyUg0OvUD9JzGOTbO7QAdar7fOH2RE/s1600/IMAG0304.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="119" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN_bZvzrOU6fX7FCcn1-Ro7pL4stafktOpdkDy2629YMsZdYkBj3D8gUAv-WJDGOgreqK1YEHWea9JXp7LHnPDJZg8VE7soT3h1_wQ6nB_C9e-MmyUg0OvUD9JzGOTbO7QAdar7fOH2RE/s200/IMAG0304.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>One of the pre-recorded bits featured books I had on my short list: <strong>Daniel Loxton's </strong><a href="http://www.kidscanpress.com/Canada/Evolution-P5913.aspx"><strong>Evolution</strong></a>. It was the first book I bought my daughter. She's still too young for it at three... months. But all in good time. Last week I was in Washington DC and was at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. And there in the book store was Evolution. I took a picture and posted it to Facebook. It was the first that Daniel had heard of it being for sale there. Good news for him.<br />
<br />
Also relating to Daniel, I disqualified one of my orignal short-list picks - <strong>Robert Heinlein's </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Stranger-Strange-Land-Robert-Heinlein/dp/0441790348"><strong>Stranger in a Strange Land</strong></a>, in part because it was fiction (Though that didn't stop me from replacing <em>Death from the Skies</em> with <em>Arcadia.</em>) and in part because Daniel <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/10/22/burden-of-proof/">recently discussed it</a> in pretty much the same context I felt qualified it.<br />
<br />
Once we went off the air I thought of three more books that I wish I had thought of bringing up in my honourable mentions.<br />
<br />
As a memorial to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot">Benoit Mandlebrot</a> I could have mentioned <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0140092501"><strong>Chaos</strong></a><strong> by James Gleick </strong>which was pretty much the first hard science book I ever tackled (and loved and was fascinated by) and arguably resulted in me being the science advocate I am today. Most skeptics get <em>Demon Haunted World</em>. I get Gleick. I <em>didn't</em> choose it as I haven't read it in nearly twenty years and that makes me rusty enough that I didn't feel confident in my ability to talk about it for four minutes.<br />
One book several of my polled friends came up with was <strong><a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Guns-Germs-Steel-Jared-Diamond/dp/0393317552">Guns Germs and Steel</a> by Jared Diamond</strong>. This has been on my "I must get around to reading that" list forever and I actually bought a copy in hopes of being able to read it in time for the show... but I only got about a quarter of the way in. It <em>is</em> fascinating thus far, but I didn't feel like I should champion something I hadn't really grokked.<br />
<br />
Lastly, was another book I hadn't read, but was on the "I must get around to reading that" list. I was reminded about it on my Smithsonian trip, in this case at the Air and Space Museum. <strong>Gene Krantz's </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Failure-not-Option-Mission-Control/dp/0425179877"><strong>Failure is Not an Option</strong></a>. Krantz is ther Ed Harris character from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/">Apollo 13</a> - do I need to say more? Tell me that <em>isn't </em>going to be an amazing auto biography.<br />
<br />
So, there you have it. I doubt that at this late date that'll help anyone make a good Christmas gift-pick for someone... unless you're grabbing me a copy of <em>Failure is Not an Option... </em>but I felt like a bit more effort, detail and illumination was in order. Not just the scatter-gun effect.<br />
<br />
Happy Jesuspalooza, everyone!Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-46198700894781281912010-12-17T19:19:00.001-08:002010-12-17T23:53:01.818-08:00Real Vaccination Injury<div class="mobile-photo"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqgxRTIrL1F416l1F1DoDHjAoHpU34lONKk8QRaokqFHlpAf85Rejjz-36Uc0jOzsWCETK7D5w1Ipa9OOXDZCQEAcxcDay-0CBAn1bTjWtL6jA3QI1zcUptmLBb8g5EmBoOYDooM9HXMI/s1600/IMAG0183-764803.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5551856684645874354" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqgxRTIrL1F416l1F1DoDHjAoHpU34lONKk8QRaokqFHlpAf85Rejjz-36Uc0jOzsWCETK7D5w1Ipa9OOXDZCQEAcxcDay-0CBAn1bTjWtL6jA3QI1zcUptmLBb8g5EmBoOYDooM9HXMI/s320/IMAG0183-764803.jpg" /></a></div><div class="gmail_quote">This is a few weeks back now...<br />
It was time for our baby daughter's first vaccination. <br />
Jodie joked a lot about how she wouldn't let her child be given autism by injection. Her beliefs pretty much fall in the skeptical spectrum, though she doesn't wear the badge. Fair enough. Many of us are in relationships with people who are basically skeptics but don't self-identify as such.<br />
Anyhow... <br />
Jodie & I got our flu shots.... which bruised her ARM for about a day, and in my case, the pain was gone about a second after the needle came back out. I admit, I'm not good with needles. Most of my pain was in the anticipation.<br />
When it was December's (our daughter) turn, the doctor had Jodie hold her still. She is a squirmy little kid, so it was the best bet.<br />
Three needles. Ten (if I recall correctly) vaccines.<br />
The most trouble she had or has had since...?<br />
Being held still for so long by Mom. Just sayin'.</div>Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-7123005317171971892010-12-08T16:43:00.000-08:002010-12-08T16:43:17.318-08:00A Change of DirectionObviously, this fatherhood thing is cutting well into my ability to keep up with skeptical blogging. While I do continue to consider myself an ardent skeptic, there are a host of things that I do put ahead of skepticism in my life and fatherhood has totally upset the cart in such a way that doing much more than attending SitP and reading a few scattered blog posts and listening to some podcasts when I've had time has really been all I could muster.<br />
<br />
But when I am out and about it the world I keep seeing things that pique my skeptical instincts....<br />
<br />
And not getting around to saying something about it has been kind of annoying me.<br />
<br />
So it is time to do something about it!<br />
<br />
I finally joined the smart-phone world about a week before I became a Dad... why I haven't (before now) set it up so I can blog directly from it when I have the opportunity... well I guess I just never thought of it until today.<br />
<br />
Most of the skeptical thoughts I have I have while I am out and about in the world, so really it only makes sense! The thoughts will be freshest and if I act immediately I don't have to rely on the clearly faulty combination of my memory and a free moment at home to get the blogging done.<br />
<br />
So here's hoping this plan works... 'cause if it doesn't it could be months or even years before I get back around to it!<br />
<br />
Oh... and on a totally side personal skeptical note...<br />
<br />
I'm not disappearing ENTIRELY from the community - 'cause they keep pulling me back in! Ah... but seriously... I'll be on a special episode of <a href="http://www.skepticallyspeaking.com/">Skeptically Speaking</a> on December 17th. Would you believe... of the 3 (I think) appearances I've made on Skeptically Speaking precisely zero of them thus far have been live. I'd make a joke about Desiree being scared of having me on without the ability to bleep me out, but not only is it not much of a joke, but to any degree that it is a joke, we've worn it out between the two of us already.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-37706004855140343422010-09-23T15:07:00.000-07:002010-09-23T15:07:19.502-07:00Ethics for SkepticsOkay. New plan.<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm really not getting a lot of time for commentary - obviously. Fatherhood is not ridiculously taxing, but I already didn't have a lot of time.<br />
<br />
But there is always stuff I think should be propogated, even if I haven't time for much added thought.<br />
<br />
So I'm going to make an effort to send that stuff out - even if all I can add is a line or two of thinking.<br />
<br />
For starters, here is a <a href="http://www.greenwoodblog.net/ethical-principles-for-skeptics/">Statement of Ethical Principles for Skeptics</a> from the Greenwood blog.<br />
<br />
It is clearly declared to be a first draft (and even if it were we'd quickly find ourselves in the "you can't make me" territory that was part and parcel of the <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/08/27/war-over-nice/">War Over Nice</a>.<br />
<br />
A few things leap out at me as being issue-worthy:<br />
<br />
3a) Don’t overstate your case. Caveat your statements appropriately.<br />
<br />
I'll agree with the first part for the most part - no time to get into the really nitty gritty of when entertainment value in order to maintain your audience may trump the absolute interpretation of that. But the second part... sigh... caveats are death when trying to reach the scientifically challenged. It is a sure fire way to bore the living shit out of them and thus lose them. Let the actual science speak to the precise truth - it is our job to propogate the message as far and wide as possible.<br />
<br />
For the most part the satire, humour, use of force and personal attacks portions are all in line with my position. They may be (heh) overstated and too cautionary but as a starting point it's a good beginning.<br />
<br />
11b) Be aware of, and in control of, your own emotions.<br />
<br />
Again I agree completely on the surface. But I suspect that the author's intent is that we should always be calm and kind. Perhaps not, but I think that the easy interpretation of this in that manner leads us straight down the "passionless automatons" route that was at the centre of much of the early debate that followed Phil Plait's DBAD speech.<br />
<br />
I'm just sayin'.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-89498859635268497882010-08-27T20:16:00.000-07:002010-08-27T21:51:13.451-07:00There's a Dick Joke in Somewhere in this TitleI can't do it. I just can't.<br />
<br />
I really wish I could be up to my armpits in what has become in my mind one of the most unlikely debates in the skeptisphere. Or more to the point, I can't believe how much vehement toothgnashing has risen over this, and I feel like I ought to be participating much more than I am.<br />
<br />
It was my intention to put out a token response - as I did in my last post - and catch up with the results in a few weeks or months after I am acclimatized to being a father. But (due largely to being tweeted by none other than Dr. Phil and Daniel Loxton) that post single handedly became my most read post ever and the 150 minutes following it being posted was the best month for hits this blog has ever seen. So now my appetite has be whetted... and it seems I have a some time to kill before daddy-hood descends upon me, and I've got a video that is taking some time rendering, so I can't really do "real" work right now anyway... so its time for some more thoughts. (MESSAGE FROM MY FUTURE SELF - This really is just a bunch of half-assembled musings on thoughts from the last few days.)<br />
<br />
If you check out the comments on the latest <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/08/27/war-over-nice/">Skeptic Blog post</a> by skepticism's civil-shepherd, Daniel Loxton it seems that the debate is shifting into the question of "what exactly is a 'dick?'" - though there are plenty of other side-battles going on. (Is PZ a dick? Did Phil mean PZ? Did PZ mean PZ? Was Phil being a dick, calling people dicks?) And I'm beginning to think that the real root of the issue falls in the word. Daniel encourages us not to get hung up on the word - and that is probably a good idea... but it's probably too late.<br />
<br />
I <em>get</em> that Phil was referencing the DBAD meme as per Wil Wheaton. As he was speaking to a geek-skewed crowd that was, on the surface, a sound choice... but it seems to have backfired. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what "being a dick" is, and not many of them align - particularly on opposite sides of the debate. (And hey, I live the consequences of a similar choice, having made liberal use of the term "asshole skeptic.")<br />
<br />
It has been said - just scroll through the comments to Daniel's post for examples - that Phil phailed to be specific. Not naming names is politically understandable, but has not helped. But some narrower parameters than what he did say about what he means by being a dick would have helped... a lot. He does point out in the <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/18/dont-be-a-dick-part-2-links/">second part of his follow up</a> that he "talk[ed] specifically about people who are insulting and demeaning." But that has been drowned out by the word... "DICK."<br />
<br />
We all have our own interpretation of what that entails. Some of us, as per Barb Drescher (<em>I spoke to several people who admitted to fleeting thoughts that they had prompted this speech somehow and I could not help feeling this way myself. That is testimony to the timeliness of it.</em>) felt, listening to it that we might be "part of the problem" (if you accept that it it a problem). Others are presumed to being looking down from their place amoungst the angels, coming up with their own uncharitable definitions. And probably most people fall into the sub-category of imagining that there is some ill-defined cadre of pooh-pooh-ers who are perched up on their higher-moral-ground casting judgement out of fingers that only point in one direction... and we are dispensing shame upon ourselves for what we imagine the consensus opinion of "being a dick" is. ...or maybe I'm just projecting. Is it any wonder people are frustrated?<br />
<br />
But really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what Phil meant, or tried to mean, 'cause clearly that message was eclipsed by what everyone else put upon it themselves and there's likely nothing he can do now, that will change that. Your definition of being a dick may be as mild as "assuming a negative vocal temperment" or "displaying sub-textual disapproval"; or as extreme as "calling someone a baby-raper to their face and not allowing them an opportunity for rebuttal." (I am not quoting anyone specifically, BTW.) But your target may have a different opinion, and a third-party observer may have a third definition. Which doesn't make reacting appropriately impossible, but it complicates things, and having to perform for the lowest common denominator is usually a recipe for mediocrity. So I guess I don't really know what we are expected to do.<br />
<br />
For starters even the best of my better angels got their vocabulary from Guns 'n' Roses. And there is an oft mis-understood (though not amoungst skeptics of course... <em>right</em>?) belief surrounding the ad hominem fallacy that just because a person calls someone a bad name (like a "dick", for example) that that invalidates their argument. (Phil is NOT saying this, BTW.) The ad hominem fallacy is only a fallacy if the argument follows that a person is wrong <em>because </em>they are a dick (or whatever.) That's a bit of a tangent, but I think the edges of it are banging up around the perimeter of this debate.<br />
<br />
Skepticism is frustrating territory. (Indeed, right now I'm really only writing (and by now rambling) because I am deep in the black-waters of a high "why the fuck are we having this discussion?" sea.)<br />
<br />
Okay, reeling my thought process back in now...<br />
<br />
Despite Phil's efforts to define and promote his definition of being a dick, the simple fact that this argument will not settle down into a definition speaks to the fact that there is a continuum of potential dickishness to be debated. Are Penn and Teller dicks? What kind of dicks? How about Crislip's not-as-scathing-as-he -thinks-but-the-intention-to-ridcule-is-there diatribes? What about that Asshole Skeptic guy? Or the second smugiest person on the planet next to Kevin Spacey, Brian Dunning? Ya know, sometimes even Evan "too nice to be a skeptic" Bernstein is a dick in some people's eyes.<br />
<br />
With so many flavours of dick to suck on (yeah, I went there) why are we even trying to limit this to the "don't call people bad-names" definition? Like it or not, it is human nature to want to "kick the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight." I maintain that eliminating dickishness amoungst skeptics is as syssiphian as any grander skeptical goal, and that trying to do anything more than ameliorate the most egregious examples is to waste a lot of better-used effort on fruitless wheel-spinning.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm not a scientist of any stripe. But <a href="http://psp.sagepub.com/content/26/4/474.abstract">one of the articles</a> cited as evidence ('cause we all reached for our "wheres your evidence?" guns that ridicule is not an effective tool doesn't appear in my mind to be as damning towards "jeer pressure" (their term) as the olive branch corps would have you believe... at least not from the abstract.<br />
<blockquote><em>Results of both experiments showed that participants who viewed ridicule of others were more conforming and more afraid of failing than were those who viewed self-ridicule or no ridicule.</em></blockquote>That is not the same as thinking for yourself, but it does not exclude it. The abstract actually states that "Creativity was not influenced by the humor manipulation." In any case, I am a layman interpreting an abstract, and even if my incomplete, civilian interpretation of the summary is accurate, it's just one study. Perhaps someone who is qualified can better levy an interpretation?<br />
<br />
I'm not a psychologist. But I am qualified to speak to another segment of communication. Entertainment, narrative and the role of conflict within. (For those who don't already know, I am a writer, film-maker and award-winning playwright.) One of the sub-goals of skeptics is to maintain the attention of the people we are trying to reach. Anyone who has written drama or comedy succesfully will tell you how rare it is to craft a scene that holds <em>anyone's</em> attention if it doesn't have conflict in it. Just try and name a film - I don't even have to qualify that with "a box-office hit" or "a film that you enjoy." There will be precious few if any. Someone might try to invalidate my point by noting that skeptical out-reach is closer to documentary... but the notion persists. The most pervasive documentaries all hold a the same commonality - conflict. "Will the funny fat-man convince GM to keep jobs in Flint?" "Can the cute penguin survive it's Odyssian journey?" "Will eating only McDonald's food kill the film's director?" "Will those brave wheel-chair athletes beat those nasty Canadians at the Para-lympics?" Conflict is compelling. <br />
<br />
Anyhow... that is a discussion for a different day.<br />
<br />
But I will point out that this particular increasingly ironic conflict in our ranks is definitely holding the attention of many skeptics.......or maybe I'm just projecting.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-15571579520862391272010-08-25T13:45:00.000-07:002010-08-25T13:45:18.955-07:00Don't Be a Dork about Being a DickWhen I first heard from returning attendees about the over-arching theme that developed at TAM8 this year, largely focussed on Phil Plait's now infamous (in skeptical circles) "<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/17/dont-be-a-dick-part-1-the-video/">Don't Be a Dick</a>" talk, my first thought was <em>"damn it all! This was clearly NOT the year for me to miss TAM." </em>(Though I have to admit I did miss it for <a href="http://ogopogomovie.blogspot.com/2010/07/best-feature.html">the right reasons</a>.)<br />
<br />
Last week at Skeptic in the Pub here in Vancouver we watched the (then freshly posted) video of the talk. I was actually in the other room when skepticism's ultimate fan-boy, Fred "Nowoo" Bremmer, came out and said "you're going to want to watch this." He was right. And predictably when we were finished the first comment was directed at the "Asshole Skeptic"... "So, Kennedy...."<br />
<br />
Before I get too deep into this I want to make something clear (again): The name of this blog is misleading. Though I began in a more strident place I have backed away from the extremities. I DO NOT advocate being a jerk to individuals on a face to face basis. Berating people is not an effective way of reaching the people you are hollering at.<br />
<br />
From that you can probably extrapolate that my position is roughly that I agree with much of what Phil says. But think he is missing some important points and angles. <br />
<br />
I won't get into a lot of details, as by now this part of the conversation has become well-worn. But a few things that spring to mind: the passion of a furious argument can communicate the value of the argument (more so to by-standers than to the target of the anger); we will never reach everyone by winning over people one at a time, occassionally one (preferably unreachable) credulite must be thrown under the bus in order to stop the whole vehicle from going over the cliff... which is to say you can afford to lose one person permanently if it means demonstrating to others how wrong the target is and thus winning a net-positive amount of people's rationality (how we measure that, I admit I do not know, but that in itself doesn't invalidate the practice, it merely makes it harder to assess your results); someone needs to be able to stand toe to toe and be heard above (or at least beside) those who don't argue in good faith, and speak on a level that cuts to the bottom line on skeptical issues and speaks to values, 'cause most people don't give a shit about the double-blind, randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed data (even typing it out is boring); more on boring - cutting to the chase and eviscerating an opponent's argument in a public fashion is good entertainment, and people want to be entertained... if the message that their way of thinking needs re-assesment piggy-backs on that, so much the better; if some of us make the rest of you look less "out there" (pushing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window">Overton window</a>) we are ultimately moving the cause forward. <br />
I could go on, but I'm already repeating things I have said in previous posts and things that have already come up in this specific debate.<br />
<br />
This morning there was a bit of a snit on Twitter between Daniel Loxton and PZ Meyers. It seems to have run out of steam in the time I've been writing this. But the debate is far from over.<br />
<br />
So, here is what I am seeing. (But keep in mind there is a LOT out there that has been written on this subject in the past five weeks - and even more this past week - so I really can't claim to have seen it all.)<br />
<br />
To simplify things, there are two sides. The Olive Branchers are staunchly in the Don't Be a Dick camp, and the Asshole Skeptics are in the "Be a Dick When it Works" camp. Generally speaking both are doing a lot of "show me the evidence that you are right!" shouting and neither is ponying up with research of their own. Or when they do it is narrow and only marginally connected.<br />
<br />
The Twitter-spat this morning typified a lot of what I've been seeing. The Olive Branch skeptics seem to be arguing (still) that taking people on face to face is never going to win them over. While the Asshole Skeptics are saying "nyah nyah, you can't stop us!"<br />
<br />
Simpilfying the debate like that is a bit of a strawman, but it is a LOT of what is going on. There is plenty of detail that falls outside of those boundaries, but much of that detail is irrelevant if we can address and solve the core argument, which frankly, is a bunch of B.S.<br />
<br />
Yes, virtually all of us agree that being a dick to someone is never going to change their mind.<br />
<br />
As Phil asks "what is your goal?" If your goal is to win over said opponent, then yes Phil, vitriol and venom is not the right approach. But in many cases when Asshole Skeptics employ vitriol and venom, their goal is not to win over that person, it is to affect the views of those watching the exchange. Sylvia Browne is never going to give in and admit she's full of crap, but making her look abjectly foolish will help those who are curious about her see that she is a fraud.<br />
<br />
Phil states quite clearly that his goal is to show people how to think rationally. "Teach a man to fish..." he says. And he would not be the world class educator he is if he did it by harangueing people. Conversely, I would suggest Showtime would have pulled "Penn & Teller's Super-happy Coddle the Audience's Self-image Hour" after the first season.<br />
<br />
Phil used the metaphor of a hammer and how to use it properly or you might destroy the wall. But there are different types of hammers for different jobs. Some hammers are even designed to destroy walls. Different vocations require a different set of hammers. A jeweller would never use a sledge-hammer to cut a diamond. A renovator would never use a jeweller's hammer to take down a wall. A renovator would hopefully never take down a supporting wall, and there is some skill in determining which walls are holding up the structure.<br />
<br />
I've said this a dozen or more times in this blog, that wielding the tools in the Asshole Skeptic toolbox is not an easy game. Most people should not be doing it, or at least need to be doing it with extreme care. I know of what I speak. I have blown it myself. I was in a yelling match with a truther at SitP once where my buttons got pushed. I'm not proud of this. I'll say that again: I AM NOT PROUD OF THIS. That person has NEVER come back to SitP. I personally lost that person. But I did learn an object lesson in how easy it is to screw up. And I'll bet that just about everyone has found themselves arguing in unproductive manners at one time or another. Every skeptic has brought the house down upon themselves at one time or another by using the wrong tool on the wrong wall.<br />
<br />
The issue is not that some skeptics act like dicks. It is that too many people who haven't taken the time to consider how best to communicate thier message behave like dicks, because it seems like the easy path. It seems to be simpler to mouth-off in defence of rational reality than to read up and get to the core of that reality. But it isn't. Anyone can come up with a nasty sounding expletive and call Jenny McCarthy a baby-killer. It IS that easy. But that is not skepticism. It looks like skepticism, 'cause yes, you are on the same side that rational thought would bring you to.<br />
<br />
Being an effective asshole skeptic is tough. In order to do it well you not only need to know your way around the issues you discuss (as well or better than an Olive Branch skeptic would) but you also have to have a sense of when to best turn on the Dick and when to leave it alone. I don't claim to be an effective asshole skeptic, I just claim to have been thinking about it a lot over the past fifteen months or more.<br />
<br />
Seeing PZ and Daniel duke it out this morning kind of hurt.<br />
<br />
PZ is going to appear near the top of anyone's list of Asshole Skeptics. And for those of us who appreciate this brand of communication, we know that he does do a pretty good job of it. His default leans towards all-asshole all-the-time, but he is so accustomed to working in that space that he is an expert of whether to use an 8lb, a 12lb or a 15lb sledge hammer. He is not the sort of person who needs to be lectured by Phil Plait or any Olive Branch skeptic. He is exactly the sort who is going to say "nyah nyah you can't stop me" back. (And indeed practically did to Daniel.) And I don't think that kind of in-fighting is necessary.<br />
<br />
The "you can't stop me" argument is pretty much a given. And I think the Olive Branch skeptics need to cede that ground where those who accompish theior goals well with it are concerned. <br />
<br />
Thus far in the debate there seems to me to be as much evidence that being a dick works (when wll targetted and wielded) as that it doesn't, so why are we wasting our time with this when we can be arguing people who really are responsible for (passively) killing babies, and showing them for who the really are?<br />
<br />
When it comes to fighting the "dicks," what we need to be doing is counselling the loose-cannons who are habitually spitting vitriol for vitriol's sake. Those who are feeding their bitterness at how stupid humanity is (and there is a lot of stupidity and consequent bitterness) into a feedback loop, rather than going out and learning more about how to debate, how to apply their wit, and how to do effective research on subjects they aren't experts at. Those are the people who need to either stop being dicks, or learn how to do it much more effectively and quit getting in the way losing as many people as they win cheap "gotcha" points.<br />
<br />
Let's use the tools we are already accustomed to wielding expertly and effectively. 'Cause seriously, if we are hell bent on first settling this internal fracas of fighting words we'll never get on to fighting the woo.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2838073223193306896.post-39760832753792988922010-07-30T19:01:00.000-07:002010-07-30T19:01:04.650-07:00Shame on Pharmasave - Shame on Global TVNo new news here, I've been out of town a lot in the past month. Indeed after this weekend (which is the forseeable end of the travelling) I will have been out of town more nights than not since the 20th of June.<br />
<br />
So I've been playing a lot of catch up on podcasts and news so this is a few days old.<br />
<br />
The other day Global BC News aired <a href="http://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=zMObvX9d3z9dAOvlXIXpncA_mVFKg8Um">this 193 seconds of imaginary health science</a>.<br />
<br />
Where do you begin with something like that?<br />
<br />
This is just a mess. I don't really know what is what in this news item, but it sounds as though what is happening is that <em>actual</em> stem-cell treatments were used. (I don't know a lot of about stem-cell treatement, but I believe that injections in ligaments and knees <em>is</em> in fact a genuine use - though probably one which has not been fully tested yet.) But that, emphatically is NOT homeopathy. Yet here it is being dressed up as though it is homeopathy. To say nothing of the fact that the definition of homeopathy that is given leaves <a href="http://assholeskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/flu-nonsense-in-georgia-straight.html">all the parts of the preparation and philosophy out</a> that would make any sane, non-fantasy-prone, intelligent person shaking their head screaming "THAT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING REAL MEDICINE!"<br />
<br />
So, as you can imagine if you've followed my actions in the past this kind of got my goat.<br />
<br />
So I went to write a letter to Global... and in the process reviewed the video and discovered that the Health Headlines (on the web page at least) are sponsored by PharmaSave! So I made sure I CC'ed PharmaSave in my email. ....One step further down the rabbit hole.<br />
<br />
I also posted the links and the emails on Facebook so that other people could voice their disgust as well. (<a href="mailto:info@bc.pharmasave.ca">info@bc.pharmasave.ca</a> & <a href="mailto:viewercontact.bc@globaltv.com">viewercontact.bc@globaltv.com</a> - FYI)<br />
<br />
Before too long my ever-curious (yet defiantly non-skeptical) girlfriend did some poking around and discovered that not only does PharmaSave <strike>deal</strike> sell homopathic remedies but they <a href="http://www.cloverdalewellness.com/web/Wellness/Wellness/web/EN/main/13410/homeopathics.html">actively hawk them</a>! (And they get their medical advice from <a href="http://www.cloverdalewellness.com/web/Wellness/Wellness/web/EN/main/13408/13416/BHRT.html">Oprah!</a> No, I'm not kidding. Click on the link.)<br />
<br />
So predictably when they wrote back, their response translated to "Thanks but we don't give a fuck."<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Thank you for your e-mail correspondence. We are sorry to hear that the article on stem cell/Homeopathy caused you concern. Pharmasave indeed purchases advertising on the Global evening news, however please understand that we do not control content produced by Global. We will certainly forward your comments on to Global so that they are aware of the reaction of their viewers to this particular article.</blockquote>Okay fine, don't give a fuck, Pharmasave. I guess you won't give a fuck if I tell a bunch of people that you - an established purveyor of health products - is more interested in the bottom line than actually providing the service you ostensibly offer. People will buy it, so they will sell it.<br />
<br />
It's this kind of bullshit that sends people up clock towers.<br />
<br />
So... rather than joining me in hte clock tower, can I suggest that you write a letter to PharmaSave and Global and let them know how you feel. Feel free to explain to Global just exactly how homeopathy works and how poorly vetted and fact-checked that article was. Feel free to tell PharmaSave that you are taking your dollars else where. I sure as hell am.Kennedy Goodkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10308801339937940368noreply@blogger.com0