If you are less than Thirty years of age then you must accept that you are generally unable to contribute to a discussion or debate because your young age means you do not have the necessary life experience that would make such a contribution worthwhile.

Dismissing people and their contribution to a topic or debate will certainly have a positive influence on the next generation whom so many older skeptics agree are those that educational outreach must focus on to pass on the importance of critical thinking. By simply dismissing young people when they try to voice their opinions is a sure way to encourage them to openly question things for the rest of their lives.

If you also happen to be female then you must show an interest in the male skeptics around you or people shall start to suspect that there is something terribly wrong with you – like that you might like ladies instead. If you are not publicly interested in the array of men around you then you are a gay, a ‘frigid bitch’, or a ‘cock tease’. If you do not feel comfortable, or show an interest in discussing crude sex things around people that you hardly know then you are obviously a gay or frigid bitch and people have every right to discuss this about you. This is just how it is. You must accept this.

If you should ever receive abuse from other people and a male comes to your defense in the conversation it is because he wants to get nuddy with you and make hay. It is not possible that he is a friend who is coming to your defense, for he is a man and you are a woman and therefor he wants to do the dirty with you. There are no two ways about it.

When you share your critical thoughts with others, when you voice your opinion and speak your mind do not be under the assumption that it is okay to do this because this is attention seeking behavior and others will see through your wicked attempt at gaining an ego boost for yourself. By even contemplating writing your thoughts on your blog you are clearly attempting to make a name for yourself and make subjects all about you. Any negative reaction you receive as a result of sharing your thoughts is only deserved and you only have yourself to blame for being young, female and daring to be vocal.

The first important lesson you can learn about being a young, female, vocal skeptic (as outlined above) is that you must simply accept from the start that you are an attention seeker whose input cannot be valued because of the few years you have been alive, and any attention you receive as a result of all that you do is your own doing and simply a result of the other person having a penis.

The second important lesson for you to learn is that you must never listen to anybody who tells you these things because they’re lying and what they’re telling you is offensive and cruel and not worth the time it takes to read the words involved.

Blog if you are young, old or middle aged. Be vocal no matter what gender you are, and learn to accept that sometimes your work gets attention because people value your opinion – not because they want to fuck you. I used to fall for these lies and felt that I had to just accept such treatment. Never again.If these few words I have written can help another person avoid falling into that trap of self-doubt, then I’ll die happy.

=======
This post, Lessons in Being Young, Female and Vocal, originally appeared on She Thought on April 25, 2012.
=======

I think we are all used to skeptic meetings of some sort. There are the big mega meetings like TAM (The Amazing Meeting). You and 1000 of your close friends in a huge venue. Big name speakers and all the glitz of Vegas are featured. Then there are the local SIP (Skeptics in the Pub). Drinking and skeptics in an intimate pub atmosphere, just the locals. However, on May 26 in St. Louis there is going to be a new kind of skeptic get together. The focus, in fact, won’t be on skepticism. The focus will be on fun! A chance for skeptics and critical thinkers, or perhaps it’s better to just say the curious, to get together. The ve

I’m going to be speaking on alien abductions. The focus will be on how I interact with alien abductees, and to dispel the sad media driven image of the average abductee.

There will be also a fun workshop about aliens! I’ve spoken over the years at various events on French superstitions, ghost hunting in New Hampshire and my skeptic books for preschoolers. The most popular topic, by far, though is when I speak about alien abductions. Everyone probably knows someone that has had the abduction experience, but most abductees have learned not to talk about it. Learn what their world is like, and how often it’s more exciting and interesting than the everyday world most people inhabit. Plus aliens are just plain fun.

I’m sure there will be plenty of time to hang out with all the speakers, and part of the fun for me is answering questions one on one. This will be a very different kind of get together, and I hope it becomes a yearly event!

=======
This post, College of Curiosity, originally appeared on She Thought on March 6, 2012.
=======

• told a group of students that lying about your illegal employment opportunities to your family …
• told a friend that lying to a guy because he’s a jerk …
• told another friend that lying to get a job and lying to the government about how you make money …

… can all be ethical and reasonable actions. That’s right, I’ve told people that lying is good.

We just assume, in our culture, that lying is bad. When we’re children, part of our developmental progress might be measured by when we figure out how to lie and our parents celebrate our progress and then quickly take our dessert from us because someone tried to feed their broccoli to the dog. Lying, to us, is what people do when they have to get away with murdering their rich relatives in order to inherit a fortune or keep from getting arrested for a bank robbery. Lying is what lawyers and courtrooms are for if you can’t have an insanity plea at your court appearance where you’re trying to squirm your way out of

This spider's babies are 10% gentic code and 90% lies. Male Pisaura Mirabilis sometimes gives gifts in order to get the chance to mate. In some cases, the gift is not actually a nutritional foodly item, as the lady expects. Instead, it may be a faked item and the male might get sex, anyway. It is akin to someone offering chocolates to a date, getting sex and then the date later learning the chocolates box was filled with Weight Watchers coupons.

public indecency charges. Lying is for criminals.

I don’t actually think that is the case. In fact, I’m not the only one who disagrees. In Sam Harris’ book, “Lying,” he makes a case for lying as an action that is sometimes good and sometimes bad, mmkay?. I haven’t read his book (though, I just bought it so I could do so, someday, when I have time, which might be never), but I suspect his reasoning is not far off from my own. Lying should be measured based on the merits of its intention and consequences. This is a very novel idea in our culture which has been so intimately bound to certain religious ideas. Lying is bad, to many (if not most) people because some supernatural authority has told them that it is.

While considering deception to be unethical, many people see it as a trait unique to humans; as some sort of maladaptive-adaptive behavior. We think it is bad, but it makes us special. The reality is, that isn’t the case. Deception is an adaptive behavior that is probably rooted deep in our ancestry and it comes in many forms. From how an animal appears to others as a way to discourage predators to a lower status male ape uttering a predator-warning call in order to have some private time with a certain apelady as the others all scurry up a tree to hide. I’m not saying that males of any species *should* lie – at this point, I’m just saying that lying isn’t a special, awesome, ugly trait that only humans have. In fact, some of humanity’s cleverest lies and most popular reasons for them have often already been done by other animals. Want to hide food to keep people from eating it? Want play a prank on someone?

Heini Hediger (1968), a past director of the Zurich Zoological Gardens, knew that apes and monkeys sometimes held drinking water in their mouths to squirt at people who came near them. He was cautious when, after taking pictures nearby, he had to walk past the cage of an old chimpanzee. Hediger noticed that the animals was sitting listlessly with his back to the walkway, apparently playing with his toes and taking no notice of him. He looked at the chimp’s cheeks, but decided that they did not bulge with water. However, when he was opposite the cage, the chimp swung around in a flash, leapt to the front of the cage, and drenched Hediger with warm water from nearly 3.5 m(12 ft) away. The trickster must have collected water just in case Hediger should pass his cage. As an animal psychologist, Hediger was embarrassed to be so caught out, but pleased that the ape’s joke was successful. His dousing also underlined the chimp’s intelligence in thinking up such a prank, as well as the need that captive animals in general have for toys they can use to amuse themselves.

In fact, we may not even be the only creature capable of recognizing deception:

A visitor recently stopped by to see Koko. On greeting the 180-pound gorilla, the visitor pointed to her and then made a small circle with her open hand in the air in front of her own face, signing You’re pretty. Koko digested this comment for a moment and then stroked her finger across her nose; her reply meant false or fake.

Koko the gorilla is obviously aware of her robust jawline, or something, or maybe she was allowed to play with barbies too much.

Of course, something being normal or natural doesn’t necessarily make it a saintly action or necessarily useful in the long run. A girl spider may be following nature by eating her mate, and it is certainly useful to her, but that male spider’s sperm is a product line that is no longer in circulation. The same goes for the praying mantis:

That male should have taken a page from the spider book and brought her a gift of chocolates before spending hours romping with her. Maybe, then, he’d still be alive. That’s really the root of the question regarding ethic and lying, though.

It may make a spider seem like a jerk to fake a gift to a female in order to have sex with her, but if his odd of dying are significantly greater if he doesn’t offer food, maybe his act of deception is not so unethical after all. I know, mot readers of this don’t consider spiders examples of ethics, so let’s bring this to the human side, now.

If a human’s life is on the line, i lying a rational thing to do? I it more ethical? Our problem with the question of ethics and lying is that we are placing a value on a description of an action instead of the action, itself. We examine deception as if all deception has the same value or as if all deception is the same action. We do the same with the concept of honesty. Yet, honesty is harmful, sometimes, too. You don’t see police officers negotiating with a particularly unstable gunman by being honest, like this: “yeah, I’m hiding over here, if you just tip your gun to the left, a bit, you can shoot me.” No, they will hide, lie and even imply false promises in order to remove the risk of danger.

In most of the examples I gave at the start of this article, lying was suggested as an ethical choice. A person at risk of being abandoned may do harm to themselves and others if they are honest about a past involvement with a crime that was of a certain nature. People in abusive relationships who are trying to leave will often lie in order to protect themselves and escape. Finally, people who work contracted jobs, work for out-of-pocket cash or use bartering in order to survive may have to lie about income (or income sources) in order to get insurance, state help or have their children put into Head Start programs. Sometimes these lies mean the difference between life and death, getting food or starving or protecting an innocent person.

Lying is clearly not something we can look at through the cultural lens that we so frequently use. We shouldn’t be evaluating it based on religious creed. In fact, I’m certain that if we had to see deception through the numerous eyes of a horny male spider (lie or die), we would accept lying far more easily as an ethical decision, designed to protect ourselves, instead of as a universally malicious act.

=======
This post, Pants on Fire, originally appeared on She Thought on March 3, 2012.
=======

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.
=======