Image drawn by Sophie Hirschfeld

The average claim for a supernatural or psychic power or ability usually follows the same typical pattern.  A good example is when someone claims they can “dowse for water” (one of the more common and also easily tested psychic claims).  Ideally, test is set up with the very confident claimant agreeing to all the conditions of the test.  The confidence of the claimant begins to falter as the test proves more “difficult” than they had imagined.  Rarely does the confidence falter in their ability, instead the confidence that this test is a “fair” test is what falters.  At the end excuses abound about why they failed to dowse correctly. The excuses never seem to include “Maybe dowsing doesn’t work.”

But, what happens when a claimant does deliver on a claim?  One would imagine that a successful result for a claim of an unscientific nature would result in great riches and admiration for the claimant.  In San Diego in the early 20th century however, this was not the case.

Rainmakers are almost a thing of the past.  But at one time rainmakers were far more common.  Belief that human action can cause rain to fall is part of many cultures, though often tied in with a religious practice or ritual.  Belief that gun fire could result in rainfall was suggested during the Napoleonic Wars. There was also belief that the gun and cannon fire during the Civil War would often cause rain.  China still has rainmakers that use shells, but with a little more science attached.

Charles Hatfield was a rainmaker, with his younger brother Paul.  He believed he had developed a scientific way to encourage nature to release rain.  His method, which was kept highly secret, involved building a large tower and chemicals.   In 1904 Hatfield felt this method was successful in bringing rain to a drought stricken Los Angeles.  Hatfield traveled around the country, claiming success after success with his method.  However, one of Hatfield s contemporaries said  of him that he could “Talk more and say less than any man I know”.  Those familiar with psychics, dowsers and tarot card readers know full well what that means.

In 1915 Hatfield sent a letter to the San Diego city council offering to help fill the Morena Reservoir.  San Diego was a booming town, and the reservoir not filling as high as it should be was a problem between 1912-1914.  The letter is as follows:

I will fill the Morena Reservoir to overflowing between now and next December 20th, 1916, for the sum of ten thousand dollars, in default of which I ask no compensation; or I will deliver at the Morena Reservoir thirty inches of rain free of charge, you to pay me $500 per inch from the thirtieth to the fiftieth inch–all above fifty inches to be free, on or before the 1st of June, 1916. Or I will forty inches (sic) during the next twelve months, free of charge, provided you pay me $1000 per inch for all between forty and fifty inches, all. above fifty inches free.

While the city council was not unanimous, a feeling of “what’s the harm” prevailed.  (For more “What’s the harm” irony visit the terrific website What’s the Harm?).  Soon Hatfield was setting up his mysterious tower at the Morena Reservoir.  By January 14th rain started to fall.  By July 16 torrential rain fell.  In fact, it wasn’t just raining at the reservoir, it was raining all over the San Diego area.  Flooding lead to the San Diego river overflowing and a train bridge getting washed out.  An irate resident who had been flooded out said “Let’s pay Hatfield $100,000 to quit!”  Still Hatfield kept on with his rainmaking, as he felt he had to provide all the rain he had promised to the Morena Reservoir.  By Jan.20 more bridges had been washed away, a train had been stranded in flooding and the new race track in Tijuana had to shut down.  In one area over 100 families had been left homeless.  The worst was yet to come with the failure of the Lower Otay Dam on Jan. 27.  Over 13 billion gallons of water was released resulting in much destruction of property and an unknown number of deaths (estimated at under 20).  Failure of this dam resulted in  $3,500,000 worth of lawsuits against the city.

Hatfield, isolated at the reservoir, expected to be treated as a hero for his part in what seemed a very successful rainmaking result.  He soon learned differently as many people blamed him for the damages. Hatfield took to carrying a gun for protection.  On Feb. 5 he tried to collect his fee of $10,000 from the city.  This was declined.  He was even told if he was willing to pay for the damages caused by the flooding, they would pay him his $10,000.  Hatfield, ever the slick talker, pointed out that the loss of bridges and buildings would result in the need to hire workers to rebuild the structures.  In other words, the flood damage was going to be good for the economy.  The city council didn’t buy it.  Hatfield offered later to settle for $1800, but was again turned down.  He filed a lawsuit with the city, which finally quietly died from lack of activity in 1938.

The question remains, did Hatfield cause the flooding?  He himself claimed he did not, that he only caused whatever rain happened at the reservoir.  Nature and God he said made the rest.  Certainly he had no way to prove the rain in one area was from a different cause then all the other rain falling. The city was afraid that if they did pay Hatfield, then they would be admitting that their hiring Hatfield caused the rain.  This would leave the city open to countless lawsuits.  Only by distancing themselves from Hatfield, could the city claim the flood and damages were an “act of God,” for which they had no liability.

Hatfield went on to more rainmaking jobs, across the West Coast and even in South America.  His scrapbook tells of success after success, though a failed rainmaker probably does not scrapbook failures.  With the odds that it’s going to rain sometime, rainmakers can have a success rate of almost 100% anywhere.  Government involvement in rainmaking woo continues to this day though, with Gov. Rick Perry’s call for prayer for rain. The prayers for rain were unsuccessful.  I like to imagine if Hatfield were still around Gov. Perry might have hired him.

=======
This post, Water Woo, originally appeared on She Thought on January 24, 2012.
=======

There is a strange conflict in the scientific community that revolves around some bizarre understanding of types of science and, seemingly, the scientific ego. Many people categorize some subjects of study as “hard science” and some as “soft science.” We’re talking No True Scotsman seems to have sneezed on the scientific community and people don’t seem to be inclined to wipe the fallacy boogers off. This categorization, seemingly, is to give one set of scientists a different class as another – it seems to serve the purpose of indirectly claiming that certain sciences are above others. Often times, these “soft sciences” are said to not even be sciences at all. Subjects such as psychology, sociology and anthropology are treated like the outcasts on the playground in the scientific community.

I know I’m not a scientist, at least not formally, in any of these fields, but this science elitism doesn’t make sense. It is as if, because of these conflicts, the basic ideas and definitions in science are ignored in order to serve some strange form of classicism.

I shouldn’t have to point this out, but science is a process. If people within a certain field are using that process to learn something more about a topic (no matter if it is about the physical properties of a crystallized form or if it is about operant conditioning), then it is science. Of course the beginnings of psychology were controversial and science wasn’t used to see if psychoanalysis would actually work, but we have produced studies that have proven operant conditioning to be an effective way to modify behavior. That’s right, outright manipulation by redundant stimuli (otherwise known as f***ing with people’s heads) can be a part of the scientific process. So, that means that psychoanalysis isn’t, itself, supported by science and operant conditioning is. When questions arise in other fields of science, the same type of thing holds true. Medical science showed us that the theory of humors* wasn’t valid, but that the Pathogenic Theory of Medicine has merit. Likewise, we’ve learned through science that classical thoughts on the elements were inaccurate. We haven’t dismissed Earth Science or Physics based on that, though. Instead, we used the scientific process to come up with better, more accurate (and way more awesome) ideas (to be clear, we’re talking about ideas that let us play with fire in more interesting ways and that enable us to discover adorable things like this).

I do understand that some subjects have the luxury of being more straight forward when it comes to finding answers. Since it seems easier to eliminate variables (I say “seems” because it certainly isn’t easy to eliminate variables in most theories in physics or chemistry, even), it makes it easier to develop a bias against other sciences. The environment that this creates, though, is one that says that a physicist is somehow a higher quality scientist than, say, an anthropologist. It is also one which oversimplifies topics in science, as if forensic anthropology and cultural anthropology are so closely related that on this bizarre view of science, they are both the same level of lower-tiered science than physics (and some of us like playing with dead things than trying to figure out foreign cultural dynamics, even though the latter is probably more socially helpful; the former is HARDCORE). Of course, there is probably some sort of ranking system of sciences, where the fewer the variables in a study or subject, the more accurate it probably is. That doesn’t make one thing a science or not, though.

Trying to dismiss psychology, sociology and anthropology as “soft science,” or “not real science,” is only distorting people’s understanding of what science is. It isn’t helpful to science or to teaching critical thinking skills. How can we expect the general population to understand science if we behave as if certain sciences are better than others? The reality is, the thing that makes something scientific or not is that subject’s relationship with the scientific process. If scientists who play with brains are using the scientific process, they’re as much a scientist as those who mess with people’s heads to test a theory, who are as much a scientist as those who play with different states of matter.

*Though, it is awesome that we tested something called “humorism” – we really should just revise the definition as being about the value of scientifically testing comedy or something similar. I want to see an international scale of humor invented. I’m not sure what archetypes to use to describe it, but someone must have an impressive idea out there, somewhere.

Note: I can understand dismissing sub-categories of a subject as unscientific when it is shown that using the scientific process to examine them shows them to be unsupported by evidence. Thus, dismissing psychoanalysis as unscientific might be reasonable while dismissing classical conditioning would be unreasonable.

Post Note, Note: I still love all my scientist friends, no matter which type of scientist you are.

=======
This post, Elitist science, originally appeared on She Thought on January 15, 2012.
=======

Jennifer Hancock, from her website

Jen Hancock was kind enough to reach out to the SheThought writers and offered me a chance to read and review her book, The Humanist Approach to Happiness: Practical Wisdom. The book is aimed at teens and young adults as a way to teach ethics, critical thinking skills and decision-making to young people. If you’re more interested in the book than anything I have to say, just scroll to the end and there’s more information on the special deal she’s offering SheThought readers.

This is perfect for me because, as someone who automatically hates everything and thinks grown-ups are stupid, I am exactly the right audience for a book aimed at teenagers.

So I suppose that’s a good place to start. I didn’t totally hate it, but I didn’t love it either. Some parts of it were really good, and some parts really rankled. It is written in an easy to understand way with plenty of examples and metaphors that are appropriate to a younger readership. The writer clearly has a very keen memory of her teenage days and isn’t afraid to mine them for engaging examples.

One of my bigger problems with the book came from formatting choices. There seemed to be some errors with the margins, which is fairly minor, but the author also made the decision to pepper the book with quotations from famous speakers. Now, I’m not against quotations, but giant quotations in between connected paragraphs makes me feel a little bit off kilter. When the quotes intrude, I feel the need either to read the quote and then re-figure out what I was reading or to skip the quote entirely.

There’s a lot of great stuff, however, on what makes people “good” people, and what makes people not so good. Her three required traits are compassion, ethics, and responsibility, and these seem pretty accurate to me. She’s also happy to list bad people as well, people who generally don’t follow those three guidelines. She’s neither pro or anti-religion, at least not explicitly, and simply says that people can be good or bad regardless of faith and the only real caveat she gives in the book is that if you or someone you know is grieving, don’t assume your faith is the way they want to deal with grief. And be skeptical about supernatural claims, because that stuff is ridiculous and can get you killed!

My favorite part is where she insists that everyone is a dork. Because we all are dorks, and the sooner we embrace it, the sooner we can move beyond lame attempts at being cool. She also thinks we should be more eager to engage in lifelong learning and learning from our elders. Amen to that. We are all dorks who should hang out with old dorks.

And then she starts wandering a bit away from things I agree with into territory I feel a little confused about. She insists that people should aim for simplicity generally, including in their diet. Now, I’m all for simple tastes and simple lifestyles, but I am always skeptical about diet claims of any kind. Insisting on food simplicity strikes me as faddish and there are no references that make it seem like she’s making scientific claims, just personal ones. Why is a drink with chemicals worse than a drink with no chemicals? Am I really to believe that natural means healthy? I mean, arsenic is natural.

And she goes on to really discourage people from indulging in “sinful” pleasures (her quotes). Now, I appreciate that a book aimed at a young audience isn’t going to say go try drugs and sex and rock and roll because they’re interesting and part of the human experience… except that’s exactly what I think it should say. This is clearly just a difference of opinion between the author and myself, but I feel a little confused as to how her view is the only one justified by humanism, though perhaps it isn’t trying to claim to be the only point-of-view.

And then there’s sex. The author and I are clearly coming from totally different worlds on this one. Her advice to play the field while dating and wait for sex are things that I don’t personally find compelling, but I don’t think it’s necessarily bad advice. But when she says things like women who hate their dads transfer that hate to all men; and people who dated can’t really be friends and shouldn’t contact one another for at least a year; and, no matter what they say, women who say they’re OK with a solely sexual relationship are really just looking for an emotional relationship, whether they know it or not; and people who watch porn lose sense of reality and it’s a catalyst for bizarre violent activity and it’s addictive… when she says things like that, it is all I can do not to punch the screen. Where are the citations? Why on earth does she think this stuff?

The book ends, however, on a high note, in a sense, about grieving. This is the best part of the book and speaks from personal experience and love. I’ve never seen much literature on the humanist perspective on grief, and this handles it gracefully.

So, there are good and bad bits and, if you rip out the section on relationships and sex, I think the book is a great read for young adults. I think few adult readers would find it challenging, but there are still some enlightening moments to it.

More information from the author:
Even though the book is explicitly Humanist, I’m finding that moms of different stripes and interestingly enough, religious folk who work with teens, are interested in the book.  My book is currently in the curricula for the Royal Military College of Canada to teach cadets critical thinking and decision-making skills. It’s also going to be in the new curricula for the UUA for youth education in the areas of critical thinking and character development.  Oh, and it’s enjoying its third month atop the Kindle best seller lists for Parenting/Morals&Responsibility and Parenting/Teens.

For a copy of the book go to: http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/22621  20% off both the ebook and the paperback formats, Coupon code: UT36F – Price will be $4.80 instead of $6.00 – this coupon expires Oct 1st 2012.

For the paperback go to: https://www.createspace.com/3463716 and use the discount code: 2SV7A43M  20% off the list of $12.98 - so the price will be $10.38

The book is also available at whatever online book retailer you might prefer to use.

PS – I’ve also got a new little e-book out – Jen Hancock’s Handy Humanism Handbook – I’m giving that away free to people who sign up for my email list and the Humanist of Florida Association are giving it away free to anyone who donates to them or becomes a member.

=======
This post, Book Review: Jen Hancock’s Humanist Approach to Happiness, originally appeared on She Thought on September 28, 2011.
=======

This afternoon I attended the volunteer luncheon at the hotel buffet. No, I didn’t crash it, I’m volunteering as a ticket taker for several hours tomorrow. There was an air of fun and frivolity as friends noticed each other in person and “touched each other for real, not on a computer screen,”  as Jennifer Michael Hecht noted.

At TAM you get to meet all sorts of people in real life, not just Twitter peeps. But don’t take my word for it, here’s a few shots of James Randi performing slight of hand conjuring at the lunch table.

This entry is cross-posted at Skeptical Humanities.

=======
This post, Amaz!ng Sights at the TAM Pre-Show, originally appeared on She Thought on July 13, 2011.
=======

This week I’ll be attending The Amaz!ng Meeting 9 (TAM9) in Las Vegas, Nevada, along with many of my SheThought co-writers. TAM9 is the annual conference of The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) that brings together skeptics and critical thinkers for several days of talks, panels and myriad activities. Each year TAM gets bigger and bigger whilst expanding content, diversity and attendance.

This year’s schedule contains two keynote addresses that are open to the general public. The first is given by Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of Nova ScienceNow and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History. Dr. Tyson brings a passion for astrophysics and a strong, persuasive message of the necessity for science education and communication to the general public. The second keynote is Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, prolific bestselling author and director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation. Dawkins is a foremost speaker on the importance of evidence-based thought in science and public life. He has the distinction of being perhaps the world’s best known public atheist.

The rest of the TAM9 schedule is the most varied and diverse yet. Included are artists, poets, scientists, activists, journalists and television personalities. The full schedule is here. The program covers immense ground in critical thinking, from Phil Plait to Jennifer Michael Hecht to Carol Tavris to Sarah Mayhew to Bill Nye to Adam Savage to Elizabeth Loftus to Skepchick bloggers to the hosts of MonsterTalk, and many, many more. The schedule is full and appeals to a wide variety of skeptics, not just serious scientists and intense science enthusiasts. This program emphasizes critical thinking for people across disciplines.

Beyond the official TAM program, there’s a full slate of fringe events which emphasize the diversity that TAM represents this year. Side trips are planned to Red Rocks and the Grand Canyon as well as daredevil activities. There are meetups for myriad subgroups, including various nationalities, vegetarians, LGBT folks and others. The most notorious of the unofficial events is Penn Jillette’s Bacon and Donut Party, which is a fundraiser for JREF.

The diversity of the official and non-official schedules of TAM9 elucidates the changing face of skepticism. No longer are cries of the skeptical movement as a bastion of privileged white men accurate or productive. This year’s Amaz!ng Meeting holds promise to be one that moves beyond talk of inclusion into one of outreach.

TAM9 will be held at the South Point Hotel, Casino and Spa from July 14-17. I will be posting daily blog updates from Las Vegas throughout the conference. If you have any particular questions for interviewees or issues you’d like me to address, please leave me a comment here or through Twitter.

This entry is cross-posted at Skeptical Humanities.

=======
This post, SheThought Happens in Vegas, originally appeared on She Thought on July 10, 2011.
=======

I think a common complaint of many skeptics is the difficulty in getting anyone to “change their mind”.  It seems that even with careful and clear explanations, many non-critical thinkers insist on clinging to their unfounded, and often irrational, beliefs.   I have heard “Why bother even being nice.  I just make fun of anyone that believes something stupid.  You try to explain and they don’t even listen.”  I’ve also heard the “It’s a waste of time to even try to reach these people”.

It can be very frustrating to try to engage someone with “woo” beliefs in an educational conversation.  Sometimes I feel like I’m the big sister again trying to deal with my little brother.

Me: “Mom said you had to help with the dishes.”

(Silence. This was his “playing deaf” technique.)

Me: “Do you HEAR me?”

Little brother: “Do you Hear me?”

Me: “You are going to help do the dishes, or else!”

Little brother: “You are going to help do the dishes, or else!”

Me: “I’m telling mom!”

Little brother: “I’m telling mom!”

(He would then disappear, and I would end up doing the dishes by myself because really, it was less bother than trying to make him help out.)

I knew I was right.  It was only fair he help out with chores.  My brother didn’t listen and would disappear because he knew I was right.  However, that didn’t mean he wanted to do any work.  If he did listen to me, or acknowledge I had a point, he would have to do something uncomfortable.  Work.

I find that sometimes when I am trying to convince a non-critical thinker of something, they either don’t listen, resort to the ridiculous, or just refuse to engage in conversation with me and disappear. It’s my little brother all over again.  I often think that the reason they do not want to engage in a fair and mature debate with me is that they, like my little brother, know I am right.  At the very least, having a “woo” belief challenged can make them very uncomfortable.  Since there is no strong evidence or basis for their belief, they have to resort to behaving like my younger brother at around age 7.

“Well, because it’s in the Bible.  That’s all I need to know”

“I don’t trust scientists, they are paid by the government you know”

“You believe those astronomers, but I believe all the people that have seen UFOs.  You can’t say they were all wrong”

“Do you know how many people agree with me?  We have a petition signed by 20,000 saying Creationism should be taught in our schools.  You can’t argue with 20,000 people!”

“I don’t understand that stuff, all I know is what I feel”

This can be very hard to deal with.  However, rather than just throw my hands up, I try to remember that even my little brother eventually matured and grew up.  We now enjoy talking on the phone and enjoy visiting each other.  It did take him a few years.  Expecting instant change, especially when that change can cause the discomfort of giving up cherished beliefs, is unrealistic.  But, remaining polite and consistent over time can lead to change.  Skeptics that claim “no one ever changes” forget that very few people are born skeptics and critical thinkers.  Any skeptic get together is full of former fundamentalists of different faiths, UFO believers, homeopathic medicine users and even the odd Big Foot hunter.  (and by “odd” I mean formerly “odd”).  Every one of these people “changed their mind”.  Very few did it after their first conversation with a skeptic.

I have had many people change their minds over the years.  A few of the techniques that have worked for me are……

• Being clear with everyone I know that I am a skeptic and clear about what my belief, or lack of belief, is
• Being open to conversation, not argument, and being open to answering questions
• Being friendly and polite to people I disagree with (with some exceptions)
• Taking some teasing “Oh that’s Kitty, she’s a skeptic.  Hey Kitty what do you think about this UFO in China?” (By taking the teasing in good spirit, they actually do listen to what I have to say about UFOs)
• Not making fun of the non critical thinker or their belief.  The non critical thinker will “disappear” if you make them feel stupid for believing in something. By being careful of someones feelings with my explanation people don’t avoid talking with me about their “woo” belief.  (If they think Big Foot lives in the woods because their Uncle Earl in West Virginia saw one, don’t make a comment like “so was he doing a little too much taste testing from his still that night?”)
• When someone is ready to talk, and eventually most people I know that are non skeptics have come to me with at least a question or comment eventually, I take the time to really listen.  I try not to just jump in with an answer.
• Try to teach some critical thinking skills when you have the chance.  Rather than just giving an answer, pull out a laptop and Google some good science or skeptic sites together.  Ask “Who would be a good person to call, or send an email, to get some help with an answer to that?”  Just giving an answer is never as good as helping the person find out the answer for themselves.
• Most of all, never give up.  Some people you may never reach directly regarding a belief they feel very strongly about.  I often help very religious people with alien and UFO questions.  They have great difficulty with the idea of life on other planets, or life from another planet visiting here.  Helping them learn how to critically think about UFOs and aliens ( for instance directing them to a science site that talks about the odds of life in the universe) may one day help them think critically about Creationism.

Even Kylie Can't Always Change Minds

Expecting instant understanding and change when dealing with a non skeptic is unrealistic.  However, it’s important to never give up.  Since the skeptic has truth and science on their side, and the non critical thinker is just plain old wrong, the odds of the non skeptic coming around aren’t that bad.  The worst we can do as skeptics is to just be quiet, or to be so annoying that we aren’t heard.

=======
This post, Changing Minds, originally appeared on She Thought on June 6, 2011.
=======

Lauri Lebo was a reporter with the York Daily Record covering the trial which took place in federal district court in Harrisburg, PA. The trial became the next landmark in a series of battles regarding the teaching of evolution and anti-evolution in public schools. It gained worldwide attention.

The events before, during and after the trial changed the lives of Cyndi and Lauri and many others involved and set a new precedent. The extremely thorough and well-written decision clearly slammed the attempts by the school board to insert their religious views into science class. But it also established Intelligent Design (ID) as creationism in new, fancy but ultimately cheap, sciencey clothing documented with “smoking gun” evidence uncovered by the stellar team of scientists and lawyers working for the plaintiffs.

Lauri left the newspaper post shortly after and wrote a book about her experience titled The Devil in Dover. This was a personal story of the gains and losses she experienced over that time: family and friendships, insights and confusion.

I first met Lauri and Cyndi at a Drinking Skeptically event I organized in early 2009 and happily our paths crossed several more times.

One Friday evening, I visited Lauri’s house off the beaten path between Harrisburg and Dover. Cyndi was relaxed on the couch perusing the Chick catalog. Chick Publications produces Creationist materials for distribution. You may have seen their most famous products – “Chick tracts” – pocket-sized 3 color comic books that warn of hellfire if you dabble in the occult, how you lose everything of value if you stray from the path that leads to Jesus and how utterly laughable it is to think we are descended from apes. One day, I found the booklet entitled “Big Daddy” (about the “silly” story of our ape-like ancestors) lying on a mailbox in downtown Harrisburg two blocks from the federal courthouse where the Kitzmiller v Dover trial took place.

I sat down and checked out the catalog and we chuckled over the propaganda machine run by the anti-evolution faction. But this was serious stuff. Even after the resounding whipping delivered to the ID proponents, they have not gone away. I was interested in hearing from Cyndi and Lauri what was new on this front and what they were doing now 5 years after the trial.

Engaged in what goes on in the world – activism and journalism

Cyndi runs a family business in Dover. She has two sons who attend Dover schools.  Now a member of the Dover school board, she has lamented to me on other occasions the terrible state of our public school funding. However, you must be the change you wish to see in the world and she has taken that to heart, trying to raise her children as critical thinkers, volunteering many hours for the local PA chapter of the ACLU and serving as a board member there as well.

Lauri has also become a very active member of the ACLU, both the local and the state chapter where she serves as a board member. She is currently still writing freelance and has another book proposal in the works. She also blogs for Religion Dispatches and is working for the Newspaper Guild as a labor organizer for freelancers.

On this point, Cyndi remarks, “The very idea of self-employment does not lend itself to organizing. I’m really curious how this plays out. I can’t figure out how it’s going to work but if does and they get paid for what they do, that’s a beautiful thing.”

Lauri comments that their main target has been the Huffington Post who does not pay their writers. “We’re getting decent attention on the Huffington Post stuff,” she says. “But it’s a big learning curve…”

Current events and politics are always a topic of conversation between these two friends. Since both are extremely well-informed citizens, I’m curious where they get their news. They admit they often trade the same story links over the Internet. Cyndi favors Truth Out, Media Matters, Religion Dispatches and AlterNet. Lauri likes Mother Jones for political news and the New York Times. She expressed dismay over some sources that are more “junk food”. “Don’t get me wrong,” she says, “I still read tons of junk food. But so much is at stake now that politician sex scandals are just not…it just seems trivial. Why am I being distracted by this? That’s the problem with [sites like] the Huffington Post. You are reading a serious story and get distracted by this thing over here.” She adds, “It’s disgusting how much space they give to [serious woo].”

Cyndi admits she still goes to the York Dispatch to get what she calls “local flavor”. She doesn’t like local TV news. “…you don’t have investigative journalism going on there so is it news or just making you aware of happenings?”

What’s the state of journalism these days? Lauri is disturbed over the latest trend of not standing up to the truth. “Everyone is afraid to speak the truth about everything because they’ll be told they are biased. That’s a terrible way to approach science coverage!”

Of Pandas and Reporters: Lauri admonishes a spectator during the trial

Her early days as a reporter at the York Daily Record introduced her to new areas of interest. She describes it: “I was assigned Gettysburg and didn’t know anything about it, nothing about the Civil War! I thought I had it down which side was blue, which was grey, that’s how stupid I was. But, I just got into it, totally obsessed with it, pulling in everything I could.”

She continues, “That’s the beauty of being a reporter. There is this cartoon of ‘How a reporter starts his day’ – it’s a dartboard that says ‘what am I an expert in?’ [with all these choices such as] ‘nuclear power’, ‘politics’, ‘civil liberties’, any of these issues. It’s so much fun, the most fun job! I miss newspaper reporting so much just because of that variety.”

So, that’s how she approached the story of the Dover school board controversy. “This one stuck more than any other issue. Once I started reading I got really curious about the science side and how cool it was. That changed me more personally than anything else I learned as a journalist.”

Getting educated

Speaking of science education of nonscientists, what was their science education like in school?

“Awful,” says Lauri, “I was horrible. I was just not interested in it. I got a ‘C’. I wasn’t interested in education at all.”

“My [biology] teacher made it difficult,” Cyndi recalls. “He was gruff man and not interesting.” And she remarked that, in her memory, he reminded her of one of the defendants on the Dover School Board.

“There was a lot of that,” Lauri adds. “I was so disconnected, for all I know I could have been taught creationism and wasn’t listening! I’m so ashamed of that.”

So what changed? Is there an event that “turns on the light bulb”? In my discussions with many people, I’ve found this light bulb moment to be common – a situation or an issue that opened a keyhole, a portal, to a new understanding of life that involved an appreciation of science and the reliability of scientific knowledge. For these two, the Dover trial was that event.

“The Dover trial was a total light bulb for me,” Lauri admits. “I loved watching animal shows, loved hiking but just didn’t think about [evolution as the underlying foundation].”

Cyndi agrees, saying, “Prior to the case, it was pretty easy to be interested in nature or astronomy.” But, the effect of the case was huge. “I don’t know how you sit in that trial day after day, listening to these experts and going through that process. I don’t know how that doesn’t affect you. I don’t know anybody that it didn’t affect.” Except, of course, those defendants who stuck to their Biblical-based beliefs. NO facts could shake their faith.

Lauri, whose father was a fundamentalist believer, was open to new information. She described looking at the world differently when she accepted the understanding of evolution. “For years I’ve fed the [backyard] birds, but I never thought about how it all worked together. I would watch my goldfinches and how they would fight and thought ‘Oh, isn’t that cute; they’re fighting.’ One day I realized there’s nothing cute about this – this is survival. If one gets more seeds, he’s going to survive. Natural selection clicked on. Once you start seeing that…it was sort of like being reborn.”

Lauri and Cyndi visit England for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday event

What’s the state of anti-evolutionists these days?

The Discovery Institute, the foremost intelligent design advocacy organization advocate “critical thinking”. But that means, Cyndi says, “allowing both sides and allowing their idea. They come from the point of view that if you can’t even discuss or allow our side, how can you critically think about it? I think they come from that martyr position.”

Lauri adds, “It plays off our notions of democracy. They are so desperately trying to get creationism into class.”

She had just finished penning an article in Scientific American that highlighted the various state legislature bills active right now and what they advocate. Regarding the motives of organizations like the Discovery Institute, she continues, “I used to be more generous – I used to believe it was solely about saving the children. There’s more to it. I’ve gotten much more cynical about their behavior. I think it’s a power thing, an ego thing. I haven’t fully wrapped my brain around it.”

“Lawmakers who are working with the Discovery Institute buy into [the Creationist agenda],” Cyndi opines. “That org had a lot of money and put a lot of time into what they do.” She fully expects this will continue regardless of their epic court defeats. “There is a certain emotional connection when you put yourself into it and get beat in a fight, ‘I’m gonna get back up and I’m coming at you.’ So maybe now with these losses, they are digging in. As long as they stay funded, they are going to continue to fight.” Cyndi’s curiosity is now aroused. We speculate about who funds such groups…

Naturally curious friends

Cyndi regards herself as a naturally curious person and that feeds her need to look at issues from all sides. Lauri, growing up in a large family, tells me she always had to defend comments at the dinner table. In addition, being a journalist was a boost to critical thinking. “As I got better as a journalist, I learned to set the strong feelings aside and hear what people have to say. I have to know enough about the issue to ask the right questions and not let [the interviewees] get away with stupid sound bites.”

“So that process helps you…” Cyndi asks.

“It does,” Lauri concedes, “…constantly sifting through the information.”

Cyndi replies, “I don’t know if I have the ability…” to which Lauri barks “Oh, yes you do! I’ve used you as a sounding board!” and I marvel at how the two friends support each other.

Participation in the Dover trial has given both women a whole new circle of acquaintances. Lauri now has lawyers, teachers, scientists and other experts to consult when she needs them. Cyndi adds that there is still a continued support network of people who were involved in the case. Before the trial, neither ever had friends who were scientists.

“Everybody told me scientists were horrible to interview,” Lauri says of her journalist colleagues, “but everyone was so freaking cool! They’d start talking and getting excited. If someone is telling me good stories, I’d get excited. Scientists are like, I’ll tell you more…”

“When we know something, we like to share it,” says Cyndi. “People like to share what they know, especially if they have a captive audience.”

“That’s true,” Lauri agrees. “People like interested people.” Lauri also says she did not run into the stereotypical scientist who spoke in impenetrable jargon. Both ladies enjoy listening to science superstars like Ken Miller talk about biology. And both express unending adulation for their dear friend, NCSE director Genie Scott.

Civil liberties – a cause worth fighting for

Finally, we move to the latest focus of their interest and talents…the fight for civil liberties. The ACLU spearheaded the legal action in Dover. Lauri and Cyndi continued their involvement and support of the organization. Lately, Cyndi has been the go-to person in the neighborhood regarding civil liberties and considers it a true exercise in critical thought.

“The ACLU is a worthy organization,” Cyndi remarks. “I would hate to see what it would be like if they were not here.”

But it is a complicated topic that people may have difficulty understanding. An example was the decision regarding the rights of the reviled Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) who protest at high profile funerals about their perceived evils of society.

“Support for the WBC…” she begins, “It’s hard to say why you support them. People don’t get that. I can’t think of too much positive to say about WBC, but you have to be able to set that aside and say, ‘what’s the price here – civil liberties.’ If free speech doesn’t apply to everyone, it doesn’t apply to anyone.”

“Too many people want to react emotionally and they can’t set those things aside,” Lauri adds and continues with an example, “The tea party has no critical thinking skills.” She explains that such groups feel any legal representation for someone accused of terrorism is traitorous, regardless of the Constitution. But, again, the ACLU fights for everyone.

“When the Westboro decision came out, Cyndi was explaining to people why free speech must be protected, even abhorrent free speech,” Lauri explains. Cyndi thinks she made some points with people, one at a time, who didn’t think holistically about it but reacted in that highly emotional way. “It was an interesting day of discussions…” From employees to hairdressers, they wanted to know she felt about it.

Both women recognize and fear that “knee-jerk” reaction to news and politics we are seeing so much of. So, in their daily lives, in talking or writing, they attempt to spread a rational view, to illuminate these complex social issues with critical thoughts from people they meet everyday to as broad an audience as they can reach.

With these two, it’s clear that unexpected small events can change the course of your career, your friends, the way you look at life and what is truly important about it.

———

Sharon Hill is a geologist in Pennsylvania who specializes in public understanding of science. She blogs at Doubtful and organizes the Keystone Society for Rational Inquiry Twitter: @idoubtit and @keystoneinquiry

=======
This post, Two Women of Dover: Taking Action for What Matters, originally appeared on She Thought on May 13, 2011.
=======

Image taken from the University of Illini Secular Student Alliance

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine, student at Mississippi State University, participated in the ‘ask an atheist day’ event on the campus. This event was created by the Illini secular student alliance and is going to be organized annually by the secular student alliance and aims at bringing awareness on the existence of atheists and helping fighting myths and stereotypes about non-believers.

This year marked the first time this event was organized on this particular campus and, while Mississippi’s reputation might have justified a bit of trepidation, it went pretty well. Why, nobody even stabbed himself!

Anyway, here are some of my friend’s reflections about this experience.

Lorem ipsum

Q- How long have you been a student on the campus and when did you join the local free thinkers association? How did you hear from it? Do you have any particular role in the association?

Well, I have been here for 3 years and I joined the group around the summer 2010. I started looking online for some likeminded individuals and eventually stumbled across the group’s message board. It was fairly inactive at the time so after a few posts to the board and a meeting or two we slowly but surely “resurrected” the group. I was eventually elected to be president of the group.

Q- So, where did you first hear about the “ask an atheist day” and what decided you to organize it on the campus?

One of our members actually brought it up in a meeting. Most, if not all of us, were unaware of this event. I was fairly excited when he took the initiative, because once he stated that he was going to do it many other members started volunteering to help out as well.

Lorem ipsum

Q- Speaking of the organization, how long were you guys meeting people? How many people did participate on your side of the tables? Did any people from you association decline to participate for whatever reason?

The table was set up and going at around 8AM I believe. I arrived at 11AM and left at 7PM. Our side of the table started off with about 3 or 4 people and as the day went on it continued to grow. We even acquired a few new members that joined us in answering questions. By the end of the day, we probably had about 10-12 members answering questions. We do have a few closeted atheists in our group, so they declined.

Q- You, yourself, are still, while not in the atheist closet, at least discreet about it. Did this cause you any hesitation when organizing this event?

A little bit. Away from my hometown, I am open with my atheism. However, since I have family on Facebook I had to keep a lookout to make sure I wasn’t tagged in any photos corresponding with the event. My family is unaware of my atheism; otherwise I am open about it to everyone else.

Lorem ipsum

Q- So, I think it is fair to say that Mississippi has a somewhat less than stellar reputation for enlightenment. Did this cause you any apprehension beforehand?

I was worried that we would be trolled heavily during the event; however once we got started we only had one guy to come up and try to run us around in circles with his circular reasoning. We recognized it fairly quickly and pointed out the flaws in his argument. He was using an “appeal to authority” to try to persuade us into becoming believers. Once he realized that his tactic wasn’t working he took the walk of shame.

Q- By your estimate, how many people did come and visit your table and what was their general attitude?

I’d say over a hundred by the end of the day. Some came and went, while others stayed and had some interesting discussions. In between classes is when we had the highest traffic, and of course towards the end of the day we had a large group surrounding our table. The majority of attitudes were that of curiosity. Living in the “Bible Belt” it’s almost unheard of to not believe in God.

We did have a few people walk by and let us know that “Jesus loves us.” We thought that was nice.

Q- What were some of the most common questions that people asked?

“Where did we come from?”

We answered by starting at the present and then rewinding, we cycled back through evolution, abiogenesis, and then cosmology. We may not know all of the process but at no point is there any reason for us to immediately jump to a supernatural step.

“What is the purpose of life?”

In general, we explained that this varied from person to person; normally we find something that we are good at or that we enjoy and use it as our “purpose”. Since there is no evidence of a supernatural creator, there is also no evidence of a supernaturally assigned purpose.

“Where do you get your morals?”

One of my favorites, I just usually pointed out how being nice to others is beneficial to society. If we were constantly at each other’s throats then progress would be hindered greatly. People usually don’t like it when someone is mean to them and when there is a mean or disruptive person in a group, that person will usually be kicked out of the group. Since the majority of people want to be accepted in society, people have grown to be nicer to each other, an evolution of understanding if you will. This then plays into decision making. Usually before we make decisions, not all of the time of course, we will weigh out the consequences. The main ideas we think about are usually a few simple questions. “Will this hurt me?” “Will this hurt anyone else?” and “Do the benefits outweigh the negative outcomes?”, then we make the decision. Basically we just tend to reason things out in my opinion.

Q- All in all, what do you think was the main impact of the event? Do you think that it will help some atheists achieve a better visibility and fight some prejudice about them?

Basically we just wanted to show the public that we aren’t bad people as a whole, that we can be good without God. I think we achieved that goal. It also gave our group some very good exposure and helped us to increase our membership because some people didn’t know that we even had a group.

Lorem ipsum

Q- So, is it fair to expect that you will organize the event again next year?

Absolutely, we’re actually planning on having more events next semester. They may not be “Ask An Atheist” day, but we really enjoyed doing this so we plan on being more involved with the public in the near future.

=======
This post, I survived ‘Ask an atheist day’ and I didn’t even get a stupid T-shirt!, originally appeared on She Thought on April 25, 2011.
=======

We all know the stories. A young woman feels out of place in her all-male research group. A female scientist finds it difficult to get lab space that is liberally given to male colleagues. A female engineering student is delighted to see her work featured on a popular news site, and immediately discouraged by the sexist comments.

Sadly, that last one isn’t hypothetical. The lab that I work with used to have a bright young women come in as part of her high school training to design and build a part of our telescope system. She eventually graduated and went off to college in engineering, and we were sure she’d go on to do great things. This morning, I caught a Facebook post from her about a microgravity experiment that she did in conjunction with NASA. I was simultaneously thrilled for her and a teensy-weensy bit jealous that she got to experience microgravity. (Okay, very jealous!) However, she also noted that she was discouraged upon reading some of the sexist comments on an Engadget article about her project. There are quite a few gems in there, and I leave it to you to check out a few, as I don’t even want to bother repeating them. (Yes, there was a reference to “space kitchens”.)

Want.

Now, I get it that sexism, subtle and not-so-subtle, is a factor in the imbalance of the sexes in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields. It is by far not the only factor, nor should internet comments take sole blame for that situation. I was very fortunate to have had supportive mentors and teachers of both sexes from high school onwards. I was even in a special science program in an all-female high school! So my reaction to sexist comments is usually, “Meh, whatever. Some people are just idiots.” Those that know me well enough know that I am prone to making sexually inappropriate jokes all the time!

This, however, hit me differently. In this case, I’m watching another young women be discouraged by such comments. Students taking on difficult challenges are particularly vulnerable, and it makes me downright angry to see this happen. I think I got all science-y mother-y protective, though I bet my comment was lost in the fray. Nevertheless, I got some lovely feedback from a few twitterers in response to a bit of a rant:

@jrmontag: @NoisyAstronomer Boooo sexism. Anywhere, but especially STEM. Women are smart and we need them! :)

@XiNeutrino: @NoisyAstronomer Actually it is desperate expressions of insecurity. Truly intelligent beings genuinely welcome geeks of any sex.

So, I think it is safe to say that all hope is not yet lost.

Women have made amazing achievements in STEM over the last few decades, and the situation has improved immensely. However, the playing field is not quite even just yet, and every hard-working, passionate student deserves to be nurtured into intellectual maturity. Don’t get me wrong, it takes a damn thick skin to get through peer review, and your work is going to be skeptically nit-picked and shaken upside-down before it gets accepted. That’s the name of the game. It’s a shame that some people have to toughen up against ridiculous stereotypes as well.

For more on the topic of women in science (and STEM), check out Sheril Kirshenbaum of The Intersection at Discover Blogs. She writes about this particular topic, especially how it affects female science bloggers.

Have a woman in your life who is interested in science or engineering? Give her a high-five today, ok?

=======
This post, When space kitchens make me cranky…, originally appeared on She Thought on April 11, 2011.
=======

I was glad to see that two of the most prominent links on the National Engineers Week Foundation website were directed towards women. One of their events, occurring this Thursday, is “Introduce a Girl to Engineering” which features events at corporations, universities, high schools, and engineering clubs around the country. If you have a daughter, it might not be too late to get them involved in one of these activities.

The other link covers a topic I’ve written about before on this site, which is the dearth of women in engineering as a career, and the low numbers of young girls who enter engineering programs at universities.  Equipped with a snappy tag line “A New Message for Girls:  Dream Big. Love What You Do,” the link Engineer Your Life discuss “a national messaging campaign designed to reposition engineering as an exciting, rewarding career choice for young women. Anchored by an award-winning multimedia website, EYL features 10 great reasons to become an engineer, streaming video of inspiring women engineers, descriptions of dream engineering jobs, and advice for parents, counselors, and engineers on how to talk to young women about this career.”

Less than 10% of practicing engineers are women, and the report states that less than 20% of the enrollments in engineering schools are women.  This is actually higher than my personal experience, and higher than that experience by my summer intern, who is about to graduate in mechanical engineering.

If you know a young woman who is deciding her career, pointing her to some of the resources will give her additional tools for her choices.  Engineering can be a rewarding, well-paid, secure career.

Society of Women Engineers

=======
This post, Engineer Your Life!, originally appeared on She Thought on February 22, 2011.
=======