As I mentioned, I am an editor of Wikipedia, helping to create the most awesome encyclopedia in the world. The price is great, free in price as well as free from ads, viruses and pop-ups. Summer 2011 I launched a focused campaign aimed at the skeptical/secular community asking them to become editors and focus on improving critical thinking content in all languages on Wikipedia.

The project has several goals all of which require people to join in our movement to learn how to edit Wikipedia either improving articles by adding critical thinking articles, removing unsourced opinions on paranormal pages to improving the pages of our spokespeople. I’m writing here today to discuss this project which I call We Got Your Wiki Back!

We know that people are using Wikipedia as their source for neutral general information. We also know (using this cool tool) that whenever anyone/anything is in the public eye there will be a spike in hits.

As an example I’m going to bring up the Rebecca Watson elevatorgate event. Please set aside your opinion and just see this exercise from a quantitative viewpoint. Normally Watson’s Wikipedia page receives 100 hits a day. We can see this in May – June 2011. In July 2011 she averages 675 hits a day, on July 2nd Popular blogger P.Z. Meyers wrote about the elevator story on Pharyngula Blog. That same morning Richard Dawkins responded in the comment section which was like dumping gasoline on the embers. About July 5th (as this statistics tool is off by a 24-36 hours) Watson’s WP page hits 2,038. August and beyond go back to normal plus 10% hits (about 110 per day.) I do not follow Watson’s career so I don’t know if there might have been other reasons why she had nearly a 2K percent spike in people wanting to know more about her on that day.

As I said, I am using this solely as an example. People are using Wikipedia as a source of neutral information. We don’t always know when suddenly the public will become fascinated with one of our own. Sometimes like in the case of the CFI conference we know who the speakers are going to be, and know that a few days before and after there will be an influx of people wanting to know more about these women. Are we prepared?

The Center for Inquiry is sponsoring a Women in Secularism conference May 18-20, 2012 in Virgina. They state “Outspoken, influential secularist speakers at Women in Secularism will discuss and examine the role religion has played in the repression of women.” Who are all these influential women that are representing the secularist community? I don’t know all these names, and doubt that most people do. So I’ve done what most people will do and looked them up on Wikipedia. Here is what the world will see if nothing changes between now and May 2012.

Lauren Becker does not have a Wikipedia page.

The Ophelia Benson page is a stub, missing a picture as well. 457 hits Dec 2011 – almost all the references on the page are by Benson. In order to prove notoriety, prominent secondary sources need to talk about her.

Jamila Bey does not have a Wikipedia page.

The Greta Christina page needs a bit of work also. She received 867 hits Dec 2011. The page has a reference flag which means that only primary sources are used. This challenges her notoriety, as in Benson’s case prominent secondary sources need to be found. The writing on the page needs some work as it reads like a fan has written the page.

Elisabeth Cornwell does not have her own Wikipedia page, but is mentioned in a sentence on the Dawkins Foundation page.

Annie Laurie Gaylor has her own page but like Benson’s it is a stub. 2,176 hits for Dec 2011.

The Debbie Goddard Wikipedia page was flagged for notability Sept 2011. Without a lot of improvement the page will soon be removed. 117 hits Dec 2011. Reading over the talk page for Goddard it seems that its deletion is only waiting until the editor remembers it was supposed to be pulled down months ago.

Jennifer Michael Hecht has a well tended page. 663 hits for Dec 2011.

The Sikivu Hutchinson page is in terrible shape, 3 flags from August 2011, one even stating that the page has no other links to it making it a “orphan”. Its only a matter of time before this page gets deleted. 212 hits to her page Dec 2011.

The Susan Jacoby page looks to be in pretty good shape, though missing a photograph of her. 1,713 hits in Dec 2011.

The Jennifer McCreight page has been improved a lot in the last few months when McCreight noticed that her page was on the list for deletion because of notoriety. McCreight wrote a blog about how it felt to have a Wikipedia page and then to have it taken away, this led to an outpouring of support by her fans. They sought out references and made a good effort to improve the page, the noteworthy flag remains. The page received 535 hits Dec 2011.

Wafa Sultan has a nicely written page though missing a picture. The page had 3,217 hits Dec 2011.

The Rebecca Watson page has 3 flags (one for notoriety) and a nasty bright red citation error in the references section. Hits are 5,961 Dec 2011.

Some might see the glass half-full and be thankful that our female representatives even have this much prominence. I’m usually a pretty optimistic kind of person, but in this case I’m a bit embarrassed. These are some of the top female secular speakers we have and 2 don’t have Wikipedia pages, and several are near deletion. Of the remaining pages only a few are in good shape. I will be bold and say that these sorry excuses for Wikipedia pages ALMOST matches the bad shape that some of our male spokespeople’s pages are in.

Why has this been allowed? These are our representatives, whether or not you agree with their message, by allowing these pages to turn into litter filled vacant lots we are giving the impression that we don’t care about our spokespeople and the world probably shouldn’t care either. If we don’t have their backs who will?

What to do about it? There is a lot that can be done. It isn’t that difficult. Can you supply a current nice portrait of one of these women? Can you help find the links necessary to improve these pages? Improving the writing/grammar on these pages will help make them more scholarly and readable. My blog Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia has hundreds of ideas of how to edit. My offer to virtually hand-hold anyone willing to learn editing stands. This is your chance to make a real difference in the skeptical/secular movement, improving the visibility and prominence of our spokespeople (both female and male) by editing Wikipedia pages is a win-win for everyone.

If you can help, please contact me susangerbic@yahoo.com

=======
This post, Wikipedia and Skeptic Women, originally appeared on She Thought on January 30, 2012.
=======

The accessiblity for writing in public and self-publishing is amazing. I feel very fortunate to enjoy a few venues in which to do this. I have a passion for factual reality, and I want to spread the good news. I do love the opportunity to put my ideas out there for critical thinkers to pick over. I love learning and refining my perspective, and I love lively discussion in the comments here.

=======
This post, Science is Real!, originally appeared on She Thought on January 27, 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.
=======

Imagine no Google, no Wikipedia, no facebook and no twitter.

Then remember. Remember how the Egyptian protests were organized and viewed through twitter. Remember how campaign information, right now, is being shared through facebook and how we’re seeing the world moving and flowing right before our very eyes on various news outlets. Remember how you have access to a great, instant education just by spending a few moments online. What would it be like if it were all gone?

How would you feel without activists like myself, or bigger ones like the skepchicks, like Brian Dunning, Ben Radford, James Randi or even Neil DeGrasse Tyson right at your fingertips? That also means no wikileaks and, in contrast, even  Fox News websites would be at risk (hey, in the interest of full disclosure, I felt the need to point that out).

Imagine that your internet was almost empty.

That’s what today is about. Protests against SOPA and PIPA are abundant, today, and part of your internet is empty to show you; to remind you of what it might be like if they were in effect. Please consider this carefully and take a look at the following links in the next few hours:

http://moveon.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/fx/
https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/
http://www.reddit.com/
http://americancensorship.org/modal/state-dept-petition/index.html
http://twitpic.com/sopapipa

=======
This post, Imagine this isn’t here., originally appeared on She Thought on January 18, 2012.
=======

Actors’ representation of American political discourse.

Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler examine major psychological currents that contribute to dysfunction in American politics in their book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.

They gathered a wealth of information from the American National Election Studies data to explain the current polarized disarray of American political discourse. In particular, they sourced a four-question inventory to sort respondents along a continuum from authoritarian to non-authoritarian. The questions have to do with how people view authority and control in parent/child relationships.

Hetherington and Weiler don’t provide a convenient one-line definition of the term authoritarianism because the concept is complex, and they wanted to avoid just the sort of negative bias that I read into it.  My understanding, based on the book as well as a bit of Googling, is that authoritarianism appears to be a type of cognitive deficit style.

“The thing that makes authoritarians distinctive is their reliance on established authorities [...] we suspect that those who score high in authoritarianism have (I) a greater need for order and, conversely less tolerance for confusion or ambiguity, and (2) a propensity to rely on established authorities to provide that order. [...]

Specifically, those scoring high in authoritarianism will probably tend to rely more on emotion and instinct than those scoring low because they (I) have, on average, fewer cognitive tools and (2) feel more threat from the often ambiguous nature of the complicated world around them.” _(p.34)

The most difficult thing about reading the book was maintaining my objectivity. It was very easy to read strong confirmation of my own biases into many aspects of the discussion. Of course I scored myself. I’m not good at dichotomous survey questions. After I mentally qualified my answers, “Yes, but….” I estimate my personal score is around -2. Beyond non-authoritarian. Anti-authoritarian.

My impression from the book and my own anthropological observation is that most authoritarians tend to be republican, white, Christian, heterosexual traditionalists. They want things to be the way they have always been. They tend to favor forceful, aggressive political candidates. The world is black and white for authoritarians, and they don’t let a little thing like objective reality get in the way of their opinions. These are the “shoot first, ask questions later” people.

Although authoritarians are generally less rational and more reactive than non-authoritarians, it turns out that even non-authoritarians commit serious errors in cognition when they feel threatened.

While authoritarians tend to feel threatened all the time from the diversity and complexity around them, non-authoritarians tend to remain calm most of the time. Non-authoritarians briefly trended toward the authoritarian side of the spectrum immediately following 9/11. President George W. Bush’s approval rating was around 90% shortly after the attacks. Fear erodes cognition for all of us, but the non-authoritarians return to deliberative calm when the threat recedes.

The republican political elite is masterful at reminding its base to be afraid, very afraid. The more authoritarian candidates are currently arousing the passions of their base with seriously scary issues like these:

Teh Gay:

Teh Birth Control:

At the extremes of the authoritarian spectrum, it really is impossible for authoritarians and non-authoritarians to imagine what the hell is wrong with people on other side. Which is both fascinating and incredibly depressing.

I contacted Jonathan Weiler via email with some questions. Both he and Marc Hetherington were very generous with their time. The discussion follows:

Me: After hearing your recent interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast, I read your fascinating book.

I find the authoritarian paradigm as you and Hetherington describe it incredibly compelling, but I have a few follow-up questions.

1. The issue of climate change seemed to be missing from the discussion. Why?

Jonathan:  I agree about climate change. A telling moment during the 2008 campaign – I thought – was Palin’s “drill, baby, drill” line, which seemed to represent a pivot from a conservationist approach to such issues (and one which, historically, many conservatives were sympathetic to) to an issue framed by the need for cognitive simplification.

Marc notes as well as that climate change is, assuredly, part of a bigger suite of issues that involve the rejection of science.

Me: 2. How do those of us on the non-authoritarian end of the spectrum rebrand ourselves as having the greater amount of courage because we don’t freak out in crises?

Jonathan: number 2 is a great question and I am not sure of the answer, but I will say that Ron Paul has framed his opposition to overseas adventures in terms of strength, not weakness. 

Marc notes that non-authoritarians probably do freak out during a crisis – that’s what humans do. A difference is that non-authoritarians disposition don’t seem to be freaking out all the time. After 9/11, almost everyone was in a high state of anxiety. That state receded for some, but not for others.  

Me: 3. Chapter 6 contains this passage: “Republicans seem to benefit by raising the specter of threat, especially as it relates to terrorism. In making this observation, we do not mean to suggest that this is a cynical strategy…” I recall a carpet bombing of terrorism-based political hay in the months and years following 9/11. My bias is showing, but it sure seemed to me like a cynical strategy at the time.

Jonathan: The cynicism statement was us being careful academics. Your bias is well-founded. To my comments about cynicism,

Marc adds that there was likely some real fear among GOP leaders. If you’ve read Ron Suskind’s “The One Percent Solution,” you get a sense of this. It’s probably not an either/or proposition, even if the motivation was *mostly* cynical.

Me: 4. I’ve read Nyhan and Reifler’s research into the backfire effect.

[The backfire effect occurs when people are so emotionally invested in an opinion that factual counter-evidence causes them to double-down on their misinformed stance. For example, there are some people who continue to believe there were WMDs in Iraq to justify their support of the war. All evidence to the contrary simply reinforces their anti-factual position.]

Are you familiar with this? If so, is there a relationship between high-ranking authoritarians and the backfire effect?

Jonathan: I am guessing you’d be right about the backfire event. It’s certainly consistent with what studies, in general, show about how they process information and make it conform to their worldview, though Chris Mooney has noted that progressives are not above doing this themselves (that’s not necessarily the same as non-authoritarians, but surely there’s some of that among non-authoritarians).

Me: 5. Speaking to the powerful impact of symbolism on people who rank high on the authoritarian index, I’m fascinated by how authoritarian issues play out in everyday situations. I have heard reports of people whose self-reported basis for their political opinions would place them very high on the authoritarian index.  These individuals are viscerally fearful of ethnic cuisine. It’s racist, of course, but beyond that it’s a fascinatingly powerful aversion. It’s as if they fear consuming the food of people they fear will turn them into Other. (Other being non-white, non-Christian, college educated, New York Times reading, non-heterosexual, etc.) Have you encountered similar everyday glimpses into the impact of authoritarianism?

Jonathan: Marc has actually looked at some data on the relationship between ethnic food preferences and authoritarianism and, as you might expect, there is much less desire for experimentation/trying new things among high authoritarians.

Me: 6. Where can we follow your analysis of the shenanigans leading into the presidential election?

Jonathan: I write for a few sources – I am a regular political columnist for the Independent Weekly of North Carolina – my columns come out on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. I write pretty regularly for Huffington Post. Finally, I have started doing regular podcasts with my close friend, Marty Beller, who is the drummer for They Might be Giants. The podcast is called The drummer and the professor. It’s not just about politics, but that is a focus, and the most recent one was from Iowa, where I was covering the caucuses.

The book was genuinely fascinating, and I love the idea that there is at least one reasonable explanation for the appalling dysfunction in contemporary American politics. I highly recommend it as a primer for tracking the debates surrounding the upcoming presidential election.

An earlier version originally published at Open Salon and DTMS

=======
This post, American Political Dysfunction Explained, Sort-Of, originally appeared on She Thought on January 17, 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.
=======

It expresses my own belief that “when the time comes” I’d like as little treatment as possible.  However, the reality, at least from the stories of my friends today, shows that end of life decision to be very complex.

My first friend is Deb.  She’s the daughter of a good friend of mine that died of cancer over 5 years ago.  I helped in the last few months with her mother, and to everyone’s horror, Deb was diagnosed with lung cancer.  You can imagine, the mother, dying of breast cancer, knowing her daughter had lung cancer.

Deb has never smoked, and only worked in hospital environments as a nurse. Lung cancer is even more difficult for people like Deb, as people assume she smoked.  We all like to take a small comfort in the thought “Well I never smoked so won’t get lung cancer”.

Link: Lung Cancer Incidence Rates High Among Women who Have Never Smoked

Up to 1 in 5 women with lung cancer have never smoked or lived with a smoker.   Deb though refuses to waste time explaining to people “No I never smoked”.  To her, cancer is the great equalizer, those suffering and battling it, all deserve compassion.  It doesn’t matter if you smoked or not, lung cancer is a horrible thing to face.  No one “deserves” it  because of a habit.

Deb decided to go on chemotherapy and experimental treatments.  She’s been through them all, or so it seems.  Pills, shots, infusions.  Some make her sick, some she barely notices.  Treating lung cancer long term means switching treatments, keeping with one until the cancer stops responding and then going on to the next.  Deb will never, ever, stop chemotherapy of some sort.  It’s taken a toll.  But her quality of life remains very good.  She works 2 jobs.  She joined weight watchers (with her doctor’s permission) and looks fabulous with her new thinner figure.  (Chemo doesn’t always make you lose weight).  She travels to Hawaii and to visit family.  Best of all she has 2 new grandchildren she never had before she was diagnosed.  They are the delight of her life.  Deciding to go the aggressive treatment route has worked out well for her.  She’ll never be cancer free, but each year she gains is another victory for science.

My other friend I ran into by accident at the food store.  I hadn’t seen Joan for many months.  I asked about her husband, and she began to tear up.  She said her husband had died, and then immediately added “We should have listened to him”.  She then went on about how her husband when diagnosed with cancer had said “I don’t want any treatment” and said he was “ready to die”.  She said her children and doctor had all convinced him to get treatment. She was almost in tears (in the dairy aisle) as she said “It was wrong of us to do that”.  Her husband suffered horribly and in the end she said it was “just one thing after another”.  I knew this was something she felt strongly about, because usual dairy aisle conversation is “oh hey, how’s it going?”

The difference perhaps between my friend Deb and my other friend’s husband is that for one science offered results and the other science offered pain and misery.  Deb’s lung cancer results are not typical.  But her taking a chance gave her years that have perhaps been the richest she has ever had.  My friend’s husband was older.  He had lived his full life.  The difference between cancer diagnosis in your early 40′s and in your late 70′s, both with poor results from chemotherapy, is that in your early 40′s you aren’t even thinking about death.  In your late 70′s you’ve at least thought about it some.

Deb made her choice by herself.  Her family had input but from the start she was ready to fight the cancer.  My friend’s husband had to be talked into it.  He was fine with just pain killers and quiet time with family before he died.  I know a lot of older friends that would choose full throttle chemotherapy, and some younger ones that might not want the endless regimen of chemotherapy Deb goes through.

No matter what, fighting cancer is very difficult for both the cancer patient and the family and friends.   Life, and death, doesn’t always give us clear choices.

I think in the end, how one chooses to battle an illness needs to be a personal choice.  My hope is that those choices are respected and supported.

=======
This post, A Tale of Two Treatments, originally appeared on She Thought on January 13, 2012.
=======

–Benjamin Franklin

I was recently and publicly called a “fat hater” on Facebook by someone I know. It was in response to an article I wrote for Discovery News about a rhyming children’s book for 4 to 8 year olds called Maggie Goes On a Diet.  The article was about a controversy surrounding the book, in which an overweight 14-year-old girl loses weight and gains self-esteem through diet and exercise. Outraged critics were concerned that the book could harm children, and I interviewed one expert (and quoted another) who claimed the book was damaging. I also analyzed their criticisms, and pointed out several logical errors and mistaken assumptions that critics were making about the book (for example that the diet Maggie goes on is an unhealthy, calorie-restricted diet, and that the book was likely to have a significant influence on children or their diets).

I spent about half a day researching and writing the column, and the final product provided a much deeper level of analysis and critical thinking than most of the other news stories on the topic (do a Google search for the topic and see for yourself). Many Discovery News readers agreed with my analysis.

Yet others dismissed my piece—not because my facts or arguments were wrong, but because it was just another example of my well-known “fat hating” bias. My article could be safely ignored and dismissed (or perhaps not even read) because anything I wrote was clearly driven by an anti-fat ulterior agenda. I would have welcomed some substantive criticism or comments explaining where my logic or arguments were faulty, but none were offered.

This is, of course, a version of the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack: Criticizing the person, not the argument or claim. We see it all the time in skepticism; it’s nothing new. But when a colleague and ostensible critical thinker does it, it’s disheartening.

I should confess that I have also been publicly accused of hating both gays and dwarves. No, I’m not making this up. Interestingly, as far as I know I’ve never been accused of hating (or bias against) Blacks, Jews, Asians, or Muslims. Then again, the week’s not over.

As it happens, I am not at all shy about identifying targets of my hatred; George W. Bush and psychics who exploit grieving families pretty much complete the list. If I hate you, I’ll make that perfectly clear; you won’t need to read between the lines. But gays, dwarves, and fat people (not to mention fat gay dwarves) are fine by me. The claim that I hate gays would surely come as a surprise to my many lifelong gay friends, including James Randi, to whom I dedicated one of my books. And the idea that I hate overweight people would also surely come as a shock to nearly all of my ex-girlfriends, few of whom are svelte.

A few years ago, I even lost a friend who refused to speak to me because I had written an article that included a discussion of false rape claims. She (apparently) badly misread the piece and somehow concluded that I was suggesting that real rapes don’t occur, or that real victims shouldn’t be believed. I of course wrote no such thing. On very rare occasions I’ve even heard the suggestion that I am somehow biased in favor of sex offenders (whatever that means) because I have written about the sex predator panic scares, explaining to parents that family and friends pose a far greater danger to children than any convicted sex offender. In fact a child is far more likely to be physically or sexually abused, abducted, or even killed by his or her parents than a sex offender stranger. This is a well-established statistical fact, and how that could be interpreted as a bias toward sex offenders is beyond me.

I am used to attacks and criticism; it comes with the territory. Any time you are challenging someone’s beliefs or claims, and especially when you do with references, sound arguments, and sources, people get upset. In my twelve years of doing skeptical investigations and science literacy work, I’ve been threatened with both violence and lawsuits (including from a New York Times reporter—involving a predator panic piece I wrote, in fact). I get hate mail of some sort nearly every week; I’m told that I’m stupid, willfully ignorant, and an embarrassment to journalism. Some people leave comments on Discovery News articles saying I should be fired. I think writing is the only profession where people who have read a few paragraphs of your work feel entitled to tell you what a horrible, incompetent person you are, and on a fairly regular basis.

I don’t mind the criticisms, it’s the bias accusations that annoy me, and it’s instructive to briefly analyze them. When I question claims about aliens and UFO photographs, critics assert that the only logical reason I would do so is because I have a bias or agenda as part of a government conspiracy to keep the truth from the public. When I question claims about alternative medicine and homeopathy, it’s not because I have researched it and know a lot about it, but because I’m being paid by Big Pharma. When I question claims made by psychics, critics say it’s because I have a bias toward protecting the scientific status quo—or that if I were to accept the reality of psychics it would devastate my worldview. And when I question claims about the links between media images and eating disorders, it can’t be because I know something about it—having studied it for years and written a book about the mass media—but because I hate fat people.

All of these folks have one thing in common: The assumption that the reason I’m criticizing their claims or arguments because 1) I haven’t done adequate research into the subject, and if I did, I’d realize that they were right; and 2) I have a hidden agenda, some bias or ulterior motive that compels me to write my ill-informed rubbish despite all the obvious evidence against my position.

Often the basic logic goes something like this: “You are saying something that’s different than what I heard (or believe), so you must be wrong.” It rarely seems to occur to them that maybe what they heard (or believe) might be wrong, and that the author who has spent hours (or days or years) researching it might know more about it. Truly open-minded people who are willing to listen and consider information and arguments that contradict their beliefs are discouragingly rare.

Many of these accusations of bias and hatred would of course not happen if I stuck to safe, non-controversial claims (among skeptics, anyway). If I restricted my critical analyses to UFOs or Bigfoot or psychic claims, I would only garner criticisms and attacks from the believers (and there’s plenty of those). My friends and fans, skeptics and otherwise, are happy to have me fight the good fight against woo, pseudoscience, and New Age bullshit day in and day out, month after month, year after year.

But some of them get very uncomfortable when I write and discuss topics that touch a nerve, especially issues about gender or sexuality (religion, as you might expect, isn’t really a point of contention among this crowd). Things get a little awkward when I question whether or not, for example, the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign actually had any effect, or whether the “epidemic” of gay teen suicides last year was real. Things get a little awkward when I question whether sex offender notification laws are useful, whether false rape claims are a problem, or whether fashion models and a rhyming kid’s book actually lead to anorexia.

I apply my skepticism across the board, asking for evidence behind any and all claims. I don’t like it when people whose ideas and policies I oppose lie and repeat false statements to make their points, and I don’t like it when people whose ideas and policies I agree with lie and repeat false statements to make their points. I try hard not to be selectively skeptical. I believe that there should be no sacred cows, no taboo topics.

I will continue to write about body image and sex offenders and bad statistics and faulty arguments wherever I encounter them. I will endure the barbs and personal attacks, because I believe that these things should be openly discussed, and the arguments, pro and con, should be carefully analyzed instead of ignored or dismissed because of some perceived bias. Truth is best served when everyone asks, “What is the evidence?” not only for claims and ideas they oppose, but also for those they support. The principles of free speech are not tested by popular speech, but by unpopular speech. In the same vein, the true nature of open and skeptical inquiry is not tested when a person says something we agree with, but in how we react when a person says something we disagree with.

=======
This post, Hate, Bias, and Skeptical Inquiry, originally appeared on She Thought on October 9, 2011.
=======

The “Women In Star Wars” panel is a candid conversation examining female characters in Star Wars lore. The panelists include Mercedes Santaella-Lam (moderator), Misty Buxton, Deunan Berkeley, Sarah Silverman, and Amy Sjoberg. These women are impressively talented, with great sewing ability and they bring with them a vast knowledge about the Star Wars movies, the original books and fan produced literature. It is interesting to see that people see Star Wars as mostly male, in characters, because of the movies, ignoring characters in the books. This panel indirectly highlights there effect, in Hollywood, where many movies feature mostly male characters, even to the point of eliminating characters from books.

12:06

We are now perched in the Lopez room, watching the panel, “Feminism, Race, and Geek Culture: Perspectives From Women of Color.” This is much like hearing a part of geek culture looking into intersectionality, using the hell culture a micro social situation where intersectionality, where what gives us varied social status amongst or peers may give us an advantage or stereotyping disadvantage in situations. This includes, for the panelists, how ethnic stereotyping affects their navigation through geek culture, seeing what characters in film they are expected to identify with, what work-related projects they may be offered, and so on.

Christina just pointed out that, essentially, a good character in books and movies may acknowledge ancestry, but won’t highlight it as a key element. Instead, the character will have their own personality that is strong and their culturally assigned race is not a main feature.

4:00

Character Studies: Geek Girls in Popular Culture focuses on how challenging it is to creature characters in popular culture. First focusing on the eccentricities of geek culture, it is interesting that Javier Grillo-Marxuach kept consistent with an emerging theme of social understanding by pointing out that geeks have kinda taken over and that the others, who are non-geeks, are often now serving us with hard Labor. “The Geeks really have inherited the Earth.”

At 6:00, I participated in the costume contest with friends. We didn’t win, but the audience loved us.

I am at the kinky sex panel, but the topic is graphic, so I won’t elaborate.

Day 2

11:30 I was late to the Skeptic Panel with Surly Amy, Jen McCrieght and three others, who don’t know because I was late. This is a great introduction to Skepticism panel, with free gifts and prizes (woot).

When asked how to deal with anti science sentiments, Jen suggests you show people what science had done or does for them.

1:00 – Rocking the Geek Niche is about people who are geeky who have used their nerdiness in their careers. The panelists run an eccentric wedding focused website. I an not interested in this topic, and feel awkward so I am jumping ship and finding another place to be.

I jumped over to the panel, “That Comic Isn’t About Me.” This panel examines how gender, sex and race in comics can diversify, how it affects people and so on. The panelists are clearly interested in seeing more diverse and real characters.

Ashley Cook said a person wrote to her once, asking that her next comic not have gays because they think it is a sin. Cook responded by saying, “don’t read my comics, then.”

Intersectionality social awareness seems to be the theme for the convention. Geek support, cultural awareness and even sex and gender issues are a major theme.

=======
This post, Geek Girl Con, originally appeared on She Thought on October 8, 2011.
=======

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.
=======