Skeptics: Bring a covered dish

It's the start of the ethnic Church festival season in my corner of Pennsylvania.  I just feasted at the local Greek Orthodox Church, and it was smashing.  The food is good.  A nice mix of people from the church and outsiders (like me) mingle freely.  There are kids running around.  At some festivals, such the local Byzantine Church, there is beer, so the adults get to kibitz while the kids knock around.  Yes, most of the festivals do have a vague religious overtone where little religious artifacts or books are sold.  Most of them include a tour of the church and have craft sales.  Yet, even the majority of the patrons are not with the church yet nobody cares because it's time for the church to make some money and get some positive community PR.  I love it.  Sadly, at the same time I as enjoying Greek treats, in contrast, online skeptics and others within the rationalist realm were sniping at each other.  While not a fair contrast, I could not help but compare the good feeling at the festival with arguing online with the people with whom I share a similar world view.

As I have noted in the past there is nothing similar to festivals and fairs within the skeptical tent (or wider free thought camp).  Yes, there are conferences.  Yes, there are skeptics in the pub, and the various skeptic camps.  I would not be surprised that at some of the more local events they are more community friendly.  Still, skepdom has no place where people can hang out with skeptics, and not much in the way where skeptics and family and friends can just hang out.  The skepticism is secondary and the social aspect is primary.

I am not saying that a local/regional skeptic group should have a street fair and invite the public.  I don't know if that is ever likely to be possible, at least not in Pennsylvania anytime soon.  Yet, I doubt the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church started on a large scale, and likely started with small social gatherings in someone's backyard or the old church basement.  

What am I calling for skeptics to do? I am not exactly sure.  Skeptics are far flung. There is a reason why conferences where skeptics meet are formal.  It is a big deal to get more than a few skeptics in the room at the same time. The end of last year the idea of a skeptical potluck went around a bit.  It did not go anywhere that I know.  However, it would be a nice start.   Folks getting together with a similar underlying interest meeting not to raise money, or even for the PR but just to eat Mac and Cheese, deviled eggs, with a hot sausage sandwich followed by cake (There must always be cake) has benefits of its own. Put the internal and external politics on the shelf.  It is not a festival, but perhaps over time this social strain could grow and I imagine in larger metro areas grow to be a more human skeptic face to the public.  

--I am painfully aware I am the worst possible person to promote such social ideas.  I am a introvert and in early modern Europe I might have even been a hermit.  Still, I do appreciate the skepticism is missing key component to even the loose confederation of people and organizations that makes up current skepticism.  I suspect I will be authoring something similar next year too.--  

Full Metal Skeptic - Karl Mamer's lastest piece in Skeptics North

Vietnam.  A beautiful land of intemperate climate (at least for someone from Pennsylvania), an ancient culture with French influence, American influence, Communist rule, capitalist economy, with a history of pain and hope.  I was lucky enough to travel to Vietnam in 2001 with my dad (a veteran of the war) shortly after his retirement from private medical practice.  Dad served for a year as a surgeon and obstetrician, where one moment he was patching up the terribly injured and another moment bringing life into the world.  A contrast which I cannot imagine, but he experienced for a year in the country before I was born and when my sister was an infant.  He is currently very involved with Vietnam Veterans of America.  I am proud of him.  

I bring this up because friend of the Skeptical Review, Karl Mamer, has authored a piece on the claims of an alleged Green Beret declared MIA in Vietnam, John Hartley Robertson.  Robertson claims he was a survivor of a downed helicopter over Laos in 1968, and he was presumed killed for decades until discovered by a missionary, Tom Faunce.  The story of Faunce and the alleged Robertson came the media's and Karl's attention due to a documentary covering the story of Robertson's return to America and his story on attempting to prove his identity in the film Unclaimed.  

On its face, this movie is portrayed as a wonderfully heartwarming tale.  A lost soldier, husband, brother, and citizen returning home after being halfway around the world for four decades.  Except Karl in his unflagging research goes on to splash the cold water of reality and skepticism upon the story.  There are some real issues concerning his alleged identity...his story of what occurred to him during his initial period after the helicopter crash, his inability to speak more than pidgin English, the lack of memory of family member names, no matching fingerprints, the lack of matching DNA to his now-deceased brother and sister, and his remaining sister's declining to require DNA testing.  Karl methodically goes through the astounding lack of evidence and discusses why most of the evidence establishing Robertson's identity as the downed Green Beret from 1968 is thin at best.  

While Karl deals with the identity of Robertson, he also deals with the motivating claims for the film Unclaimed.  Karl has admittedly not watched the film.  Karl to his credit does deal with this issue in a reasonable manner, but unfortunately leaves himself open to cheap shots from detractors, namely the film critics who bought into the "documentary" lock, stock and barrel.  

I must admit a part of me was rooting for the alleged Robertson's story to actually be genuine while reading this piece.  Despite the dubious nature of Robertson's claims to being the Green Beret Robertson, I think we would all hope for a returned soldier from the grave so to speak.  Unfortunately, Karl makes a very solid case this is not to be.  

The first installment of Karl's investigation is being published by Skeptics North.  The link to the first installment can be found here.  Overall, it is very thorough piece.  I do have to say as much as I would have loved for Robertson's story to be real, it is terrible when frauds such as this go on.  As I know from my dad, there is a vast brotherhood between veterans, but nothing but loathing distain for faux-veterans.  I think the men and women at the local VVA would not hold Robertson in high regard.  

- Lady Whitehall co-authored this piece.

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe messes with Texas, and Exposing PseudoAstronomy and the "Red" planet.

It has been awhile since an episode of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe truly piqued my interest.  Not that the show is ever terrible, or not listenable.  It is a very solid production, but much like The Tonight Show starring Johnny Carson, it was so solid it was somewhat routine.  But this week, the SGU was far from humdrum.  

The Rogues discussed the latest screw up of alleged psychic Sylvia Browne that has been bouncing around not only skepdom but also in the wider culture for the past few days.  Bob discussed how our current theories of how lightening is formed might be wrong and how cosmic rays may be the triggering event to cause lightening.  The Rogues discussed how this is the year of the cicadas in the Northeast and East coast of the United States.  The Rogues discussed their odd 17 year mating cycle, how loud they can get, and how they might taste when eaten.  All of it interesting, but nothing very memorable.   

However, the interview was of Dr. Don McLeroy, a Texas dentist who also holds a degree in electrical engineering.  He was also on the Texas State Board of Education and was the center of the controversy to change the science textbook standards to teach the weaknesses of evolution and to allow teachers to teach the controversy and let the students decide.  At the time this was a big, big deal and was viewed by many as back door creationism/intelligent design.  Dr. McLeroy was interviewed by the Rogues or at least Jay, Rebecca, and Dr. Novella.  Dr. Novella took the lead.  

I give Dr. McLeroy a lot of credit agreeing to the interview.  He had to know he was not walking into a possibly contentious discussion with people not disposed to his own views.  This requires real moxie and I respect it.  This being noted, Dr. Novella who keeps his calm and cool during the interview did sound at times as talking from behind somewhat clenched teeth.  Overall, the discussion was respectful and civil.  

I am not going to give a blow by blow of the interview.  The reader can listen for the content.  I will note that Dr. McLeroy did sound sincere in his thoughts and rationalizations.  He was fairly candid in his faith views, and gave his reasons why the experts are wrong, and why evolutionary theory is wrong.  Dr. Novella gave counter arguments in his questions, and came off as passionate but polite.  Sure, I may wish that Dr. Novella had gotten in a real hard zinger or made Dr. McLeroy fumble more.  However, it was nice to get someone on the other side of the cultural competition directly from the source.  This was a nice bit of getting outside of our skeptic bubble.  If you have not listened to the SGU lately, this is an episode not to miss.

Before I listened to the above, I listened to the latest episode of Dr. Stuart Robbins' Exposing PseudoAstronomy.  The episode was on the conspiracy to hide the true color of Mars from the public.  As always, Dr. Robbins does an excellent job in breaking down the science: first, on how humans see, and then how the technology works in transmitting images to a screen of some sort.  I must admit I have learned more about photography and imaging during the run of Exposing PseudoAstronomy than I have anywhere else.  The Conspiracy Skeptic's Astronomer Royale then discusses the alleged reasons for this conspiracy, and why 'they' don't want you to know the real color for the "Red" planet.  Really, they are all rather thin theories.  It sounded like conspiracy that was around just because someone could either make it up or perhaps they were reaching.  Yes, the episode contains clips from Richard C. Hoagland.  What is a good space conspiracy without Hoagland?

The Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast talks Water

Just a quick post to point out that it appears that the Conspiracy Skeptic podcast appears to have returned to its somewhat regular schedule of one podcast per month.  The podcast releases were getting a bit erratic, and I was worried host Karl Mamer might close up shop.  However, Karl has had three release within three months, so things appear to be back on track.  The latest episode is with Portlander, James Funston who is fighting for Portland, Oregon to enjoying the blessings of fluoridated water.  Portland is the largest U.S. city without fluoride in its water.  Whether to fluoridate or not is coming up for a vote with the populace.  

Karl and James discuss some of the weirder conspiracies regarding fluoridation such as how the Nazi allegedly placed fluoride in the death camp water supply to keep the inmates docile.  Karl shares how his hometown of Windsor went off fluoride when the city counsel decided to listen to Youtube video weirding anti-fluoride folks rather than actually scientists.  It is a briefer episode clocking in at 45 minutes, and a pleasant listen.  It was not a exceedingly scientific or historically deep discussion, and James did not seem to be one to yack it up.  However, given how the alleged evils of fluoride is a topic that springs up from time to time within society it is worth the listen for some general background information.  Also, James shares that he is a PBR beer guy, so he's alright by me.  

On a side issue, it appears there is a possibility I might be involved in a paranormal investigation.  It is all very preliminary and all might come to naught.  However, I am really freaking excited about the prospect.  If this comes to pass I just hope I do not botch things up.  Luckily, another skeptic of the first order who is far more skilled and knowledgable is involved.  I hope this pans out.  

Thoughts on Skepticism from the Swag Store

Over the weekend, I perused some skeptical websites' swag stores around the same time I learned that Prof. P.Z. Myers was repudiating referring to himself as a Skeptic.  Whether one agress with Prof Myers decision or the reasoning behind his decision is being hashed out in other areas of skepdom, but looking over the swag stores at the various skeptical/freethought websites does reflect the vying worldviews of various Skeptical parties. 

Examples of Skeptical swag.  (Not including Ike)

While I was on Skeptical Robot, the online store for the SGU, Skepchick, the Geologic podcast, and Pharyngula, it was interesting comparing what the various entities were making available to their fans for purchase.  Geologic was only selling a simple t-shirt with the word ‘Vibrophone.’  A reference to the secret greeting Geologic host George Hrab asks people to say to him if they meet him in public.  That’s it.  An innocuous shirt with an odd word on it that the vast majority of people have no idea what it is supposed to mean.  The SGU’s store on the other end has all sorts of swag for purchase.  There are little miniature dolls of the Rogues, and refrigerator magnets for sale.  Various t-shirts with the show’s logo upon it, and other shirts with a helmeted space dinosaurs upon it. (A reference to an inside joke that only fans will truly appreciate.)     The only provocative item is a spoof of the Jesus fish with legs, a brain, and SGU scrawled into the body of it. 

Skepchick’s swag is a bit more edgy.  They sell logo shirts, and some jewelry pendants made by Surly Amy, but also sold is a shirt with the logo No Gods No Masters, and some buttons with feminist quotes that might take aback some in the general public.  Pharyngula’s store has a collection of inside joke items featuring Prof. Myers known love of squids.  It also has a star pin for “People’s Republic of Pharyngula,” and a dinosaur Jesus pin. 

In comparison, I hopped over to the Token Skeptic and Doubtful News stores to compare.  Doubtful News has a t-shirt and a mug for sale with the Doubtful News logo.  The Token Skeptic has a huge variety of various shirts, mugs, and items embossed with the various Token Skeptic logos.  The major theme with all the TS logos are they have some feline connection with them.  Kylie Sturgess, the woman behind the Token Skeptic brand, is well known for her love of cats.  (Really, cats are cool.  There is a reason they blanket the internet with their stubborn adorableness.)  Unless you are offended by cats, there is nothing provocative about the Token Skeptic or over on the Doubtful News swag. 

So with the above skeptical swag comparison noted, it does appear that skeptics can make differing statements with their swag choices.  Sharon Hill of Doubtful News and Sturgess are both proponents of 'classic' scientific skepticism otherwise called Bigfoot Skeptics by some.*  However, the other strain believes that little to nothing is beyond skeptical investigation including politics and religious belief.  I cannot see Doubtful News selling a 'Doubtful about God' shirt, or Monster Talk selling 'Let's make Republicans as scarce as Big Foot' mugs. Sturgess, who is also a atheist activist, does seem to keep her atheist activism out of her TS swag collection.  

I think this reflects not just an ideological difference, but also a cultural or personality difference.  This is not to state such divides cannot be crossed, but even if skeptics on the classical and newer strain agree on 90% of issues, this 10% difference viewed between folks can be magnified by these underlying differences.  

I don't wish to blow what the swag represents out of proportion, or try and make some grand sweeping theory of swag.  It is just a single data point.  However, a person buying a Token Skeptic t-shirt is likely trying to give a few dollars to Token Skeptic, likes the logo design and perhaps hopes to advertise for the Token Skeptic.  A person buying a 'No Gods No Masters' Skepchick shirt enjoys the design, wishes to support Skepchick financially, and is also trying to make a statement.  To me, it is the difference between buying a Chevy bumper sticker, and buying one of those anti-Ford bumper stickers that have Calvin peeing on a Ford logo.  These choices reflect two different types of purchaser and likely somewhat representative of the differing motivating factors for the listener/readership of these.  

One cannot be overly surprised that a major figure in these two different world views might feel the desire to break away, or that Skepchick found it necessary to part ways with TAM a haven for classic Skeptics beyond their immediate reasons for splitting.  Regular readers are aware that I am firmly in the classic skepticism camp.  It is where I feel comfortable, and I am basically within all four corners of this type of skepticism.  While I disagree with a fair amount of Prof. Myers views on his brand of skepticism/ scientific atheism, I do not wish him ill.  I think despite my disagreements with some of his views there is much he has to offer.  For many people in the community, it is not an all or nothing proposition. I will enjoy my Doubtful News mug, my various SGU shirts, and my Token Skeptic mug, and I will probably never buy a Skepchick item.  It does not mean I think others who buy that Surly Amy pendent are awful or a People's Republic Pharyngula button are morons.  It just means it's not my cup of tea.  

* 'Classic' Skepticism is the process of evidence obtained by systematic observation and reason.  Generally, skepticism remains apolitical and is not out to take down religion unless those areas make claims that can be tested. (Media Guide to Skepticism)
 

SGU and SWaK on being skeptical of the skeptics.

I have not commented upon the Skeptics Guide to the Universe much in the recent past.  The SGU is a very solid production which is predictable in its execution, so there is typically not a lot of interesting things to comment upon.  However, the lastest episode of the SGU 406 contained a interesting discussion regarding a topic covered the previous week regarding Bitcoin.  The segment consisted of the Rogues and in particular Jay Novella admitting that they had under-researched the segment on Bitcoin.  Dr. Novella lead the discussion talking about how they ought to do research on a topic, and it is important to track back the research to original sources of articles as well as to try to determine if there is a general consensus view on a topic from scientists or experts in the particular field.  Jay described how he went about his research starting a Wikipedia and then following the cited sources.   The problem with Bitcoin is that it is a really complex, mysterious, and highly controversial topic. Is it money? Is it a scam? Who runs bitcoin? Is this a weird internet fad? There does not appear to be a consensus on it by experts on any of it. I am not even sure what experts one would look to with Bitcoin: economists, tech engineers, businessmen, currency traders?  I recall hearing the discussion on the SGU about bitcoin very near in time with a discussion on Bitcoin on This Week in Tech, and the two discussions did not jive very well.  Yet, I did not follow up on how different Bitcoin was presented between the two podcasts.

I applaud the SGU for admitting when a segment was not up to snuff.  On the other hand, it does show how much a listener (or at least I) take on face value when listening to a podcast.  Yes, I know.  I know.  Don't take a podcast show's presenter's facts and opinions on a topic on face value, and do your own research.  It is what skeptics are supposed to do, but in all likelihood don't really do.  Who has time to research the four or five topics presented on a Virtual Skeptics, the SGU, and similar topical discussion podcasts.  I lack the education and training to intelligently question many of the topics discussed by Dr. Stuart Robbins on his Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast.  Dr. Robbins is the expert on Astronomy and I tend to take what he says on face value.  

In the same vein Skeptics with a K released an entire episode where all the stories on the episode were made up.  I listened to the episode on a train ride home from Philadelphia, and as I recall it was a goofy episode, especially the last segment on the Mersey river monster.  If I was a good and diligent skeptic, I should have started researching the topics to discover they were bogus on my own.  Yet, as a crummy skeptic, I was more meh that's some weird stuff and moved on with planning dinner and walking the dog.

What is a skeptic to do other than accept our trusted podcasters as nobody has the luxury of time or the expertise to be skeptical at all times and double check what one is discussed.  My main thought is to be more on guard, and not trust what you hear just because it's Michael Marshall or Jay Novella discussing a topic.*  And be aware that there are times those that you take a face value could be incorrect, and be willing to admit your initial thoughts on a topic based upon the podcast discussion are wrong and move on. I suppose this is the way of a good realistic skeptic.

Mars.  A place to visit, but not stay like Las Vegas or Orlando

As long as I am posting on the SGU, on the latest episode The Rogues spent a fair amount of time discussing Mars One a planned reality show where people train to be selected for a one way trip to Mars.  To me it's kind of a crazy notion that a television show will send people to Mars never to return.  In fairness the Rogues seemed to think the chances of this actually coming to pass were slim.  However, I kept hearing in my head the late Perry DeAngelis interjecting his gruff 'Are you guys crazy, sending people to Mars.'  Maybe, Perry would not have had such an opinion if he were alive.  There is no way to be certain.  However, it is times like these that the Perry jolt of reality likely would have come in handy.  Yes, I still miss Perry.

Of note, on the latest Just Skeptics podcast Trystan Swale is the guest panelist.  It was an overall entertaining episode, but Trystan's soapbox (spoiler alert) on the Boston bombings struck a chord with me.  I tend to agree with Trystan's take on the interaction of the media, social media, and the jump to conspiracies that took place immediately after the event.  Swale's take on an American accent have me concerned if I really do sound like that.

Dr. Stuart Robbins on his Exposing PseudoAstronomy blog has his list of favored podcasts.  What struck me was how his post on this topic was organized, which was different from mine.  Mine, as is my style, is meandering and wondering.  His set up was orderly and in alphabetical order.  It is a good list.  The post reveals how his analytical mind differs from my not so analytical mind.

*Yes.  I understand that Marsh and the rest on SWaK were trying to prove a point that was well taken.  

On Dunning and Podcast listening

It is not my intent for this post to be read as piling onto the current predicament that Mr. Brian Dunning has now found himself.  However, for reasons that even I am not sure of, I do wish to share my thoughts on the situation at least as it might impact me as a podcast listener and a little bit on why.  For what little it might be worth to the listener:

As the reader is likely aware, noted skeptical podcast host Brian Dunning of the popular Skeptoid has pled guilty to wire fraud, and he is awaiting sentencing.  The particulars of this case as known and going back are documented elsewhere.  Suffice it to say, Dunning is no longer accused of criminal conduct, but is now a criminal.  The motivations of Dunning’s plea, whether he had comes to terms that he was indeed guilty, or that he has decided given the case against him that making a plea bargain despite his innocence was the best solution, I have no idea.  Dunning might be the only one who knows his motivations for pleading guilty.  However, Dunning in the eyes of the law, is guilty of a crime. 

I admit to being torn.  I have never met Dunning.  He has re-tweeted one or two of my tweets, which was a thrill for me.  I am a faithful listener of his podcast that I almost always enjoy save for a few nitpicky items here and there.  I view him as an asset to the skeptical community.  Obviously, I cannot help but feel for his family and loved ones who are caught up in this situation. The emotional part of me cannot help but make excuses for the guy.  Maybe, it was not his idea and instead some partner(s).  Perhaps, eBay thought it was okay, but then turned on Dunning and used its business influence and clout to bury the Dunning problem.  I am a tech fan, but not a techie.  I keep thinking there has got to be some angle of this cookie placing issue that I just do not understand. 

The rational part of me is aware that just because the messenger has some serious flaws, the message itself can still be perfectly valid and rational.  The back catalog of Dunning’s work regarding all those areas where he has focused his skeptical eye is no less valid than the day before he pled guilty.  

And yet, I also cannot help but think this is fraud.  Fraud.  It is the stock and trade of where many skeptics place their focus.  Skeptics uncover and expose fraudulent psychics, or selling dowsing bomb detectors, and miracle herbal supplements, or bogus miracle medical procedures.  Skeptics WE stop fraud.  We don’t engage upon fraud.  I guess that is what really bothers me.  If Dunning were found to have a shoebox full of unpaid parking tickets, was pulled over for driving under the influence or caught smoking cannabis, I would likely not give it a second thought.  Those may be mistakes or contravening arguably poor laws, but it is not fraud.  Skeptics of all people ought to be better than this. 

And still with the above noted, if Dunning after his sentencing is able to continue producing his podcast, I’ll still listen to him.  Others may not, but I probably will unless the show’s content suffers due to his change in circumstances.  Dunning, like all of us, is an imperfect man.  He has no doubt given a black eye to the skeptical community, and he has given ammunition to our cultural competitors to fire back at our activities.  Still, Dunning’s contributions should still be accepted as long as his work as a skeptic remains of quality. 

On a side note, this gives me flashbacks to an issue James Randi was involved with a few years back.  I am not talking about his recent interview regarding apparent support of Social Darwinism.  Rather, the issue surrounding Randi’s life partner’s criminal act of identity theft.  To me, this always struck me personally as worse than the Social Darwinism matter.  Not because I support Social Darwinism, but because identify theft is a crime of fraud.  I wrote a piece at the time that the skeptical community’s silence on this issue was odd.  I wish to make very clear I do not believe Randi should be ostracized or raked over the coals for what he may have known about his partner’s conduct.  However, after Randi’s partner was sentenced and the situation put more or less behind, my respect for Randi’s work has not diminished (at least that I can tell).  However, the pedestal I placed him upon dropped.  I suspect to a certain degree the same will happen with Dunning.  Perhaps that is wrong of me and I am being too hard, or I am giving both of them too much of a pass.  Then again, I am only human too. 

As noted by another skeptic (and Forrest Gump), that’s all I have to say about that.

My State of Podcast Listening

Podcasts.  I listen to a lot of them.  Sometimes I like to reflect on what I am currently picking to hear on my queue and what I have either dropped or what is at least not on my must hear list.  This was in part triggered by a Tweet from  @ltravis911 asking me what is my favorite podcast.  In many ways, it simply depends on my mood.

I

The podcast I find myself choosing as a must listen is not even a skeptical podcast.  I thoroughly enjoy Andy Ihnatko’s Almanac on the 5by5 network.  Ihnatko does have some overlap with skepticism.  He is a friend or at least an acquaintance of Dr. Phil Plait, and he does comment on technology, comic books, movies, and other geek heavy targets.  What I enjoy most about Ihnatko is that he is a master of the medium.  He has excellent voice control.  He shares his thoughts in a logical and yet entertaining manner.  He harbors very little ill will even against those with whom he disagrees.  Even with his enviable skills as a writer and podcaster, he has loads of humility.  I can’t recall the last time I thought he came across as arrogant or condescending.  As far as I am concerned, he is the gold standard of the medium.  I would suggest all podcasters take the time to listen to at least ten or twenty hours of Ihnatko at work on Almanac or Macbreak Weekly.  This is not to say that others should impersonate Ihnatko, but to use as a benchmark. 

In the realm of scientific skeptical podcasts, I cannot say I have a favorite.  I never miss a Skeptoid.  Granted, the episodes are only 10 to 15 minutes in length, but it's always a worthy amount of time unless Dunning is doing one of his musical numbers.  Those I can do without, but his regular episodes are wonderful.  Point of Inquiry I almost always make an effort to listen to the latest episode.  Indre Viskontas and Chris Mooney are both solid hosts, and the show's half-hour length is conducive to having enough time to have a reasonable conversation, but not too long to be a chore to listen.  Mooney at times seems to get stuck on Climate Change to the exclusion of other topics, but this is more a quibble than a solid complaint.  It is a hot topic (no pun intended).  Exposing PseudoAstronomy is fantastic.  I wish Dr. Stuart Robbins had started his podcast five years earlier because he would probably have a much larger following instead of launching into the crowded podcast market of today.  Robbins does an excellent job explaining in an interesting manner some of the wacky ideas of the cultural competition.  Most episodes are less than thirty minutes making it much easier to fit into one’s schedule.

Skeptics with a K, Virtual Skeptics, Just Skeptics and lately Strange Frequencies are highly enjoyable panel discussion shows.  Virtual Skeptics sadly still does not release an audio only podcast version which makes viewing this vodcast a bit of a chore, but a worth it chore.  Strange Frequencies does contain interviews at times, but there is a lot of Jason Korbus and Bobby Nelson discussing new items.  Just Skeptics which is on its second run has polished up its act, and is always an interesting 45 minute to an hour listen. Skeptics with a K contains Marsh, Collin, and Mike.  All three shows, at least for me, have that quality of listening to some friends I wish I had in real life talk about stuff that I find interesting but none of my real friends do.  (Maybe I need new friends, but I am lucky to have the ones I do have.  I am not about to push it.) 

Be Reasonable and Fortean Radio are the spinoff shows from the Righteous Indignation, and both interview folks from the ‘believer’ end of the spectrum.  Be Reasonable does it from a skeptical viewpoint, while Fortean tends to be more open ended and just revels in talk of the ‘weird and wonderful.’  I find each highly engaging and entertaining on their own terms.  Honestly, I wish there was more direct discussion with folks who are not within the skeptical tent. 

Then, there are the less regularly released podcasts.  Conspiracy Skeptic, Quackcast, and Monster Talk each of which used to be on a regular schedule but at least in the last six months tend to release a new episode whenever.  The latest CS was a wonderful episode on the chem trail conspiracy.  Dr. Crislip is beginning to sound burned out, but his episodes are snark-filled, science-based take downs of medical nonsense, which deserve no quarter.  Monster Talk is sometimes the most interesting hour or so that week when an episode is released.  Is there no pun that Blake Smith is not willing to attempt? 

The Award Winning Token Skeptic appears to be almost on a seasonal system of bursts of

released content followed by Major Award quiet periods.  Kylie Sturgess produces possibly the best solo podcast in skepdom.  Sometimes the episodes veer more into atheist activism than skeptical activism for my tastes, but Sturgess keeps the topics varied and the interviews sharp.  They are almost always interesting.  There are also podcasts that are more possible listens rather than must hear podcasts.  Skeptical Connections is the newest of these shows.  I find it very uneven.  The podcast consists of several segments strung together by various returning contributors.  While some segments are interesting, others leave me cold.  In particular, Squidocto's segments just do not work.  I am not sure if it is the use of modulated voices, or the strumming guitar background, or the tenor of the voice.  I just find myself skipping that segment after the first couple minutes.  Skepticality, I nearly always listen to the upfront segments by Tim, the Skeptical Humanities, among others.  I do not always stick around for the interview portion of the episode.

There are other podcasts that I now listen to infrequently, although if something is of high interest or I am in need of content I will download. The Skeptic Zone fits into this category.  I used to listen to the Zone religiously, but there just does not seem to be enough time in my life to do it.  This really is becoming a major problem.  As the reader can see, there is a lot of content just in skeptical podcasts to enjoy.  There is other content out in the podcast world to enjoy, which I am a believer in making time to hear.  About two years ago, I vowed to listen to non-skeptical content so I wouldn't get an overly skewed world view and start talking about Science or Fiction in the office to queer looks of huh?.  To this end, I try and listen to Autoline Detroit (cars), Macbreak Weekly (tech), Talk Show (tech), This Week in Tech (tech), My History can beat up your Politics (history), Hardcore History (history), The Dis unplugged (Disney), and Doug Loves Movies (stoner movie comedy chat), Irreligiosophy 2.0 (religion) among others.  Yes, I definitely have trouble keeping up with these non-skeptical podcasts too.

As I re-read the above, I am leaving out Invisible Sky Monster, Dumbass Guide to Knowledge, and the very excellent Rationally Speaking.  My goodness I have left out the Skeptics Guide to the Universe.  

podcasts are veritable smorgasbord of listening choice.

How could I forget?  Actually, I have so much content to absorb, I sometimes ponder if SGU ought to get to be moved to second tier status.  This is not a knock against the Rogues, but more a comment on the vast amount of content.  

There are other shows I have not mentioned that many likely love, and others I enjoy regularly that others may dislike.  That is ok.  I am a freaking podcast addict. Sure, other people actually do stuff with their lives such as talk to their spouse, pull weeds, and attempt to harness the power of the atom.  I just try to write an occasional blog post.  I suspect there are just too many podcasts for the skeptical population to maintain, and yet I would hate to see someone not produce content.  Come on in and join the fray.  

Skepticism compared to activist Atheism - Sharon Hill

Sharon Hill is on a roll lately.  Doubtful News is a hit.  She's a speaker at NECSS and the upcoming T.A.M.  She even has a gig at the Huffington Post.   I am not the biggest fan of the HuffPo or Arriana Huffington.  Still, it is a cool gig.  Ok, it is a very cool gig. While I am happy for Hill, I still can't help but think 'damn you Arriana you win again . . .You win again.  

Enough general gushing over Hill.  Hill spoke at the Pennsylvania State Atheist Convention, which took place in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania the Capital of the Commonwealth* of Pennsylvania last year.  Oddly enough the hotel the conference was held is located across the street from my work parking garage.  I did not attend the conference mainly because, while I am not a person of faith and I do fall on the agnostic, atheist, nonbeliever, heathen spectrum, atheist activism just in not my thing.  I have sympathies, but I am decidedly a Skeptic, and pretty much just a skeptic.    

However, Hill spoke at the conference.  Her talk discussed the differences between Skeptics and atheists.  Most of the readership of this blog likely has heard this discussed before, but Hill does a nice job of wrapping into a nice 30 minute or so talk where the differences are anchored.  She does so in a pithy non-confrontational style.  I typically do not watch most Youtube videos of talks that I run across in my twitter feed.  I simple would have to give up sleep inorder to fit them into my schedule.  Yet, I think this one is well worth the time.  Even if one does not agree with Hill's take (I pretty much agree with her.) She makes a nice pitch for the good fences between neighbors view of things within the free thought world.  

*that's right the State of Pennsylvania refers to itself as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We are a queer lot in Penna. at times.   

Strange Frequencies

Strange Frequencies is a web radio show that broadcasts live every Sunday at 3pm, and it has recently begun to upload episodes for later listening as a podcast.  On the recommendation of a trusted skeptic, I decided to give the show a listen.  The show has a two host format both of which record together in person rather than via a Skype connection.  I have to admit I wish it were possible for more podcasters to use this format.  There is something about the delay and not being able to share a space with someone on Skype that keep the flow of conversation from being natural.  I think this is one of the reasons Skeptics with a K is so charming -- all three of the hosts record together in the same room. 

Chrome!

The show is hosted by Bobby Nelson and Jason Korbus.  According to the website bios, Nelson is a 'believer' turned skeptic and Jason has a cat named Lily.  Both hosts have appropriate voices for audio recording, and because it is live, there is no easy way for them to dip into the now overused voice modulation bag of tricks.  Brian Dunning is known for using this technique to differentiate quotes on his show, which is fine.  He’s flying solo and he sort of pioneered this technique on his show.   Sound modulation must be easier to do with the latest software as this trick has been spreading, and like 1950’s chrome accented cars that started out interesting, sadly became overused.  

The episode I heard was recorded and aired on Easter Sunday.  The episode featured two interviews, both regarding the "historical" Jesus, with Prof. Richard Carrier and Prof. Robert Price.  The show began with a news or update segment which in this case discussed Sherry Shriner and her ideas that the government is infecting everyone with a zombie virus, their opinions on the price of tickets for paranormal conferences, and regional professional wrestling. 

The Shriner discussion focused on a Facebook exchange Nelson and Korbus had with Shriner’s followers on what constituted evidence of the governmental plot to infect the citizenry.  Evidence that was purported to be on the CDC website was nowhere to be found, which fed into the conspiracy that they were hiding the evidence.  Nelson and Korbus discussed how at a certain point conspiracy theories are difficult to argue against given that a lack of evidence is evidence of a conspiracy. 

The hosts then discussed that the price of tickets for paranormal events are beginning to get rather expensive, and basically what you get in exchange is to hear stories by television ghost hunter stars.  They discussed an exchange with Ideal Event management, who promote and run such events who defended the ticket prices.  Nelson and Korbus understood why such events are expensive to produce, but the return for the money for them is not worth it. It was an interesting discussion.  Similar discussions have occurred within skepdom on the cost of various events especially T.A.M.    

The discussion of attending a Professional Wrestling match was fascinating, but then again as a kid from about 4^th grade to 9^th grade if you didn’t watch the WWF you really had nothing to talk about at school.  It sounds as if the match they saw was not much better or even worse than what I watched on Saturday morning television as a youth.  I just found the conversation interesting between two guys on a non-skeptical topic, where I could have been the silent third party.  I suppose for some this might have detracted from the overall paranormal/pseudoscience thrust of the show.  However, I found it to be a nice break. 

Prof. Carrier was the first interviewee and he is well known for his “Richard Carrier’s” blog and his latest book “Proving History:  Bayes’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” He discussed how he came to the conclusion that Jesus likely was just a myth rather than based upon a historical person.  He discussed how his fans raised money for him to do the research to study if a historical Jesus existed.  Yes, Carrier has a fan base.  Carrier also discussed his idea that historical research ought to be based upon Bayes’s

Richard Carrier's fans?

Theorem and research could be reduced to numerical calculations.  I found this part particularly interesting.  I merely have a Bachelor's of history, but even at the undergraduate level one did have to weigh which information seemed more likely than not.  I did not have a mathematical formula handy to write my term paper on Lee's Invasion of Central Pennsylvania in 1863 from a political viewpoint, and I wonder how one places percentages on material.    It might work.

Robert Price was well, Robert Price.  Price as always tosses in the names and works of various scholarly works on religion and philosophy, which I would be impressed with if I could just pronounce the names correctly let alone have read and understood their works.  I did find it interesting that while both Price and Carrier question the actual existence of Jesus, they did have differing views on whether Paul likely existed.  Carrier was in the Paul was real camp, while Price thought Paul was probably mythical too.  (I want to put a Paul is dead joke here, but will refrain.) Price always gives a good interview, and Nelson and Korbus kept Price within bounds.  

Korbus and Nelson were decent interviewers.  They came at it wearing their lack of knowledge on their sleeve instead of acting that they understood Carrier's Bayes's Theorem.  At the end of the episode, the hosts made it clear that they typically do not do an anti religion topic, and tend to not be that type of show.  Then they repeated it again, and again.  I believed them the first time.  This was my only real complaint with the episode.  This and the show clocked in at over two and one-half hours.  At this length, listening to an episode really is a commitment of time.  While I do plan on listening to future episodes, and look forward to it, I am not sure when I will be able to squeeze it into my podcast queue.  I suppose when This Week in Tech is unappealing, which is happening far too often these days, I will download Strange Frequencies.  It's good to know that Midwest Americans can produce a showing as charming as Skeptics with a K, and without the benefits of having British accents.

Two Karls with a K.

The Karls came out for your skeptical podcasting enjoyment this week, and here are a few comments.

The Canadian Karl

After a three month break the Conspiracy Skeptic podcast is back with an "Unplugged" episode, which means Karl Mamer is working solo without the benefit of a guest interview.  The topic was the Dungeon & Dragons satan scare of the 1980s.  

Karl covers how the D & D satan scare was a branch of the general Satanic Panic of the 1980s.  He discusses the genesis of the satanic D & D, as well as other roll playing games scare, to Patricia Pulling the mother of teenaged gamer who sadly committed suicide. This is tragic.  It must be an awful

What the (a-hem) cool nerds played

terrible burden for any parent to bare if this child take their own life.  This event pushed Pulling to blame the influence of D & D as the cause of her son's death.  She went on to author books, go on a speaking tour as a self proclaimed expert, and start an organization "Bothered about Dungeons and Dragons."  At her peak of influence her work was referenced by Tipper Gore, the wife of then Senator and ever Presidential hopeful Al Gore in her efforts to clean up society.  (Tipper Gore was big into censoring heavy metal music too.)

Karl details the errors in logic, and perhaps even subterfuge Pulling exercised during her peak to support her opinions. Also, discussed is the Pulling Report authored James Stackpole that was published around 1990 that revealed the flaw of Pullings work and her dubious expertise to the public.  

The episode is less than thirty minutes long and highly interesting, and not only for those of you that played (play) roll playing games in the 1980's.  (I played a bit of D & D, but was really into the James Bond roll playing games.  "I rolled a 2.  I get to seduce the henchman's daughter, and obtain information. Yes!")  Karl weaves through his talk a comparison to the media coverage of the topic at the time, and to how such things are covered today.  All in all, another good episode by Mr. Mamer. 

The Rogue Karl

Then another Karl with a "K" made a guest appearance on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe.  Karl Withakay won a slot as a guest rogue for an episode of the show at last year's The Amazing Meeting.  I must admit when the episode started and Dr. Novella announced we have a guest Rogue who is Karl spelled with a K, I thought "Karl Mamer landed a spot on the show and didn't tell me ahead of time? That son of a gun."  No.  It was another Karl. This Karl did quite a nice job fitting himself into the flow of the episode.  

If I were ever so lucky to be asked to appear on the an episode of SGU, I suspect I would just freeze, and say nonsense such as:  "Remember when Neal Adams was interviewed on the show? That was awesome!"  Luckily for the listener Karl did much better.  Karl's news contribution was discussing a person who became so tired of the time and energy it takes to eat a meal that he invented his own subsistence cocktail.  This cocktail is a one stop nutrition drink, which has garnered a bit of a following online.  He covered the the topic well, and in an interesting manner.  I was impressed.  Even more impressive is when the Rogues discussed recent findings that fracking might be causing an uptick in the number and severity of Earthquakes in low Earthquake regions, Karl chimed in with comments clarifying what was causing the Earthquakes in particular.    

A notable section of the show was the Rogues discussing a listener email questioning "More than Gravity" theory which questions the correctness of Newtonian Gravity.  The gist of the theory is that it is the solar wind that keeps things planted on the ground and makes the solar system tick, and not gravity.  I always enjoy hearing Dr. Novella getting exasperated over sciency sounding gibberish that is illogical, but yet someone or some group is pitching as an alternative to current science.  It was a classic Dr. Novella takedown of a topic.  Quite nice.  

The overall episode of the SGU was a good one, and to Karl's credit he clearly added rather than subjected to the episode.  I just hope he writes expose on what it is like to be an SGU guest and is it true it take over three hours to record on eighty minute show.  Karl has a blog "Cordial Deconstructoin" which discusses the science of Fringe. (Yes.  Karls appear to be a polite lot.)

20,000; SWaK; Virtual Skeptics; Relax

Not buying what we're selling

On the latest Virtual Skeptics Sharon Hill raised the question of the number of active skeptics out and about. I am not sure if she meant in the world, in the English speaking world, or the just the United States. Her estimate was approximately 20,000. I tend to this might be a bit low depending on one's definition of Skeptic, and how it is calculated. However, I agree this is in the ballpark range based upon listenership to various podcasts, magazine subscriptions, and similar bits of evidence.  Whether 20,000 or 50,000 this strikes me as depressingly low. Doing some very rough calculations and considering only the parts of the world where English is the primary language that even bumping the number of skeptics to up to 50,000 means that about 1/10th of a percent of the population are skeptics. This isn't really even a minority. This is a rounding error.

Come Join Us.  Maybe we should bring cookies?

Granted skeptics are mice that roar at times. The work of the Australian Skeptics combating mystic power bands and anti-vaccination nonsense as well as British Skeptics work against homeopathy are examples. Yet, skeptics are still few and spread thin. The Internet over the past 20 and especially past 8 years has grown the numbers, but perhaps not as much as is thought. It may be that skeptics can just communicate more efficiently, and it give the perception of a numbers bump. Whatever the impact of the Internet skeptics numbers are still paltry in the bigger scheme of things.

Why? Look at Time Farley's list of skeptical podcasts and Doubtful News media guide and there resources galore for the public to tap. There are some mainstream media skeptical friendly shows such as Mythbusters and the long running Penn & Teller's Bullshit. Yet, skepticism just cannot obtain that elusive traction despite our internet connected grass roots skeptical blossoming of the past eight or so years.

To imagine the type of traction that skepticism would require to grows to 5% of the population would be dreaming. However, getting to just 500,000 skeptics seems like a pipe dream and would this would still be under 1% of the population.  I can't help but wonder why is Skepticism failing to take root in a meaningful way? What are we doing wrong, or at least not correct that suddenly viewing the world rationally using scientific skepticism desirable.

Alas, I do not have an answer or answers. Perhaps the message is too tide to a very peculiar personality type. I suspect there lots of folks who generally agree with the skeptical world view, but can't image why bother dealing with the pseudoscientific, alt med, paranormal bullshit at all. (Here, I think of my dad). Maybe, skeptics just need a break such as when a pop culture celebrity appears on Letterman wearing an SGU t-shirt and discusses their love of the JREF. This could springboard skepdom into the public conscience. To an extent all the infighting among skeptics one finds when one does a online search might turn people off. It just might be skeptics are freaks, and normal people just don't want to see the world in a rational scientific light. Whatever the cause skepticism just has not gained any impressive traction despite numerous online outlets.

Be it 20,000, 50,000, or 100,000 skeptics the numbers compared to the population as a whole drive me near despair. What we are doing with our minuscule numbers is impressive, but these small numbers have consequences. Skeptics do not make up enough to matter as a voting block. As was discussed on this episode of Virtual Skeptics the skeptical population is too small to support very many individuals to do Skepticism for a living.  Most skeptics are doing their activism on the side after dealing with their day job.  Although I suspect if the skeptical population could grow to 500,000 or so this might be enough of an audience for more to make a living at being a skeptic and supporting larger efforts.  Currently, there is no depth to support a major media campaign or support a true think tank or lobbying effort.

The above being noted it was an enjoyable if goofy episode of Virtual Skeptics. The episode focused on an African mystery of people believing that their penis vanished or shrank due to witchcraft or black magic or whatnot. The results with the panel were juvenile, but good natured. Although good luck explaining this one to the kids in the backseat of the Honda if you're listening in the car.

Marsh wears a freshly pressed shirt?

This guy wears a freshly pressed shirt?

On the Skeptics with a K Marsh engaged in an excellent discussion of what Skepticism aspires to be versus the reality of skepticism given that imperfect people actually are doing it.  People are biased. People make errors in judgment and logic despite their best efforts.  Marsh discusses this human failing in the context of James Randi's recently discussed and debated remarks regarding Social Darwinism and Marsh's own interview with Will Storr for Storr's book Heretics: adventures with the enemies of science.* Marsh opines that Randi's social darwin statements, later recanted, are not evidence that Randi's body of work is wrong.  However, it is evidence that Randi, a person, can be wrong.  Storr interviewed Marsh at the last Q.E.D. conference this interview, at least in part, made it into Storr's book.  Will's line of questioning of Marsh fed into a biased view of that Skeptics, at least Marsh, are slick chaps with a good line of shit wearing freshly pressed shirts who don't even research that which they feel is nonsense. Storr asked skeptics to name the homeopathic studies to support their view that homeopathy is nonsense.  Few of those interviewed could rattle off the name of such studies which apparently Storr took to mean skeptics are bad.  

Marsh points out that much of this line of argument is based upon seeing the opposition in the worst light rather than first being as charitable to their viewpoint and then engaging in a discourse.  Randi and Storr made mistakes in logic not because they are bad people, but just happen to be people.  Marsh shared that he did not believe Storr was out to get him, but that Storr took away from the interview what the material that supported a preconceived.   Marsh shared that anyone can do this if they are not ever vigilant.  Unfortunately, nobody is ever vigilant.  

Apparently, being charitable in interpreting an opponents arguments this is called steel manning as contrasted with better known term straw manning and arguing against a bogus weakened version of the others remarks.  The term seems a bit clumsy to me, but it might grow on me.  Just for Marsh's bit of the episode, this week's SWaK was well worth the listen.  If you are lucky enough to attend Q.E.D.  give Mike, Marsh, and Collin a hearty slap ont he back and perhaps buy them a drink, or gift card to a dry cleaner.  

Random Musing

No skeptics on this particular beach

I must admit in general I have been on a bit of negative course lately.  I am at dis-ease on the current state of Skepticism.  I really do not wish to be a Donnie-downer.  Skepticism as a whole could use a week on a beach in the Dominican Republic, and no blogger, podcasting, or tweeting could occur related in anyway to skepticism.  Relax.  Hit the mental reset button, and see what things are like upon the return home.  With only 20,000 or so of us I bet Punta Cana could absorb most of us.  Oh well, I can dream.  



*I have not read this book.  I am not even sure if it is available in the U.S.  However, it has been kicking up some controversy.  

Fortean Radio

Trystan Swale was flying solo on the latest edition of Fortean Radio.  His co-host Anna Nimeton and Andy Russell were not available, but Swale is an old hand at podcasting and was quite proficient at carrying on by himself.  Swale opened the episode discussion a recent alleged UFO photograph, which now appears fairly certain to be hoax. 

Hereford Mappa Mundi

Swale followed up this piece with an interesting discussion of Mappa Mundi found in the Hereford Cathedral.  This medieval map shows the world as then known with heaven above Asia, Europe and Africa with the world centered on Jerusalem. The map also contains pictures of exotic animals some of which turned out to actually exist, such as the elephant, and others such as the griffins, that appear to only be in lore.  Trystan compellingly discusses the map contents including pictures of other races of humans.  Some of these humanoids have the heads of animals with a person’s body, and others have no heads but their faces on their chests.  In many ways Swales discussion of the Mappa Mundi at Hereford Cathedral was one of the more compelling and unique segments I have heard in a podcast in quite some time skeptical, scientific, or other.  It was a weird and wonderful exercise in experiencing a slice of experiencing the Fortean world. 

The interview for this episode was of Anthony Hogg who authors the blog ‘Did a Wampyr Walk in Highgate.”  The blog is dedicated investigation of the alleged Vampire of Highgate.  A vampire incident that allegedly occurred in late 1960’s Britain.  Interesting, Hogg resides half a world away in Australia, but became interested in vampires as a child.  Hogg is skeptical that there was a vampire.  He basis this opinion not only on the available evidence, but also due to the lack of scriptural support for the existence of vampires. 

In my mind Bela is it.

I suspect on other podcasts dealing with such a strange allegation as a vampire, but not thinking they actually exists based in part on a religious view, the episode might have been sidetracked.  Instead, Swale continued on with the interview and allowed Hogg to tell of his background, interest in vampires, and what he has learned about the this vampire and the other investigators of the event, to an entertaining result.   Hogg gave a peek into the political infighting and disagreements of those within the world of vampire enthusiasts.  (I suppose it might just be endemic that small subcultures just like to argue with themselves.)

Fortean Radio is not a skeptical podcast.  It a podcast dedicated to discussing the odd and strange, but not copying the Mysterious Universe model.  At least in this episode, Swale assumes the listener is an adult and in for a good listen rather than a debunking.  He was in fine form, and produced a top notch Fortean episode.  

Just Skeptics

Just Skeptics this week featured an interesting discussion which boils down to skeptics just being human beings, and not being immune to knee jerk irrational thoughts and emotions.  The discussion arose as Poylp discussed that an easel being found fallen over for no apparent reason made him initially think he had a poltergeist in his apartment.  The actual cause of the toppling was a loose nut, which was determined after some investigation.  However, it was agreed that if one is predisposed to believe in ghosts and such how this could be clear evidence of their existence.  Polyp also shared how he once saw something that he was sure looked like a UFO, and for many seeing is believing.  Polyp after a bit of research discovered the mundane true nature of his sighting.   

A UFO and a balloon.

Skeptics can at times have a ‘tut tut’ attitude to stories of ghosts, UFOs, and just strange feelings of being watched etc.  It was refreshing to have skeptics show a bit more empathy toward such claims.  As I discussed on Virtual Skeptics Halloween Special, I thought I once saw a ghost.  At that moment, it sure as heck looked like a ghost, so when people talk of ghosts I try and remember that I have encountered such an experience. 

The panel also discussed the latest high tech dowsing rod.  This time an Egyptian doctor claims to have a dowsing device that can scan a person and determine if someone has hepatitis.  This feels eerily familiar to the dowsing bomb detection device sold to military forces in Iraq, and for which the British inventor was criminally prosecuted.  Once again, there is old wine in a new bottle. 

Also, Gavin shared his theory on how internet providers are attempting to put the squeeze on bandwidth on consumers to entice them to avoid Netflix and video streaming.  He does not go off the Dvorak deep end, and actually this type of speculation is rampant on This Week in Tech and other technology outlets. 

I am not sure if it is editing, or that Janis is at the hosting helm, or just experience, but Just Skeptics since their re-launch has really come into its own.  The episodes are still a bit rough around the edges, but there is more polish and less sidetracking than during the first go around. 

I always go back and forth in my mind, which kinds of podcasts I enjoy more.  The lecture style snippets of Skepticality and the new Skeptical Connections, the interview format of the main segment of Skepticality and the new Be Reasonable, or the friendly gabbing of Skeptics with a K, Just Skeptics, and Virtual Skeptics.  I think it has a lot to do with my mood.  It also has to do with the overall tone of the show.  While it might be heresy, I could never get into the Pod Delusion.  Some of the segments were highly thought provoking, some were ok, but to my ear there was a lot of whining.  Enough whining that it fell off my podcast rotation unless someone of note was featured for an episode.  I suppose the panel style appeals to my desire to enjoy skeptical friends just chatting about stuff I’d like to chat about if I had friends who were skeptics.  Instead, I have mainly "normal" friends so talking of the Ketchum DNA debacle or  Wegman’s large selection of homeopathic nostrums would go over like a lead balloon.  The lecture style appeals to the academic trapped inside of me wishing that I had become a history professor instead of an attorney.  The interview style appeals to my deepest geek.  I suppose all of these styles and others have a place in podcasting.   

Point of Inquiry - a talk with Lynas

Chris Mooney interviewed Mark Lynas on Point of Inquiry.  Lynas is an environmentalist and until relatively recently a vocal and actively critical of genetically modified crops.  However, Lynas made waves when he changed his opposition to GM crops based upon his review of the scientific evidence.  

Lynas described how some environmental activists are concerned about global warming, and yet are opposed to some of the best and readily available methods of lowering carbon output.  Lynas indicated that 30% of carbon releases are related to agriculture, so one would think this would mean support to grow food more efficient and less land use intensive would be a popular policy position.  However, many of this same group desire food production methods that require less efficient land use in order to be organic or at least more traditional.  In regard to energy production Lynas pointed out in Germany a coal fired electric plant is coming on line in part to allow a nuclear power plant to taken off line in the name of the environmentalism.  Therefore, a carbon neutral method of energy production is making way carbon intensive method of electrification.  

SkepReview HQ is within the zone of doom.

I am aware of the pros and cons of nuclear power, and it can get quite heated.  Nuclear power is carbon neutral, but when things go wrong they can go really, really wrong.  I live within the zone of doom of the infamous Three Mile Island, and I recall my first grade self being whisked away from school by my mother at the time of the accident.  Luckily, nothing overly awful occurred, but it was a close shave.* Yet, natural gas, that does not have the same risks as nuclear, and also is has a less of a carbon footprint than coal is also opposed by those concerned with global warming according to Lynas. 

Lynas and Mooney share that many in the environmental movement are motivated by emotion, which is great but it should not get in the way of the best evidence. 

An interesting side note is Lynas describing how environmental positions of conservatives and liberal in the U.K. differ from the kin in the U.S.  An example is the GM crop opposition has a lot of support in the British right, while in the U.S. right it is not such an issue.   

It was interesting to get a look behind the current of those who are obvious of good intent, but whose facts are to an extent cherry picked to back up set position.  Lynas compared it a bit to global warming deniers.  I thought 'ouch' at that comment. The discussion of difference between issues of the mother country and her offspring are different between the parties was intriguing.  An entire episode could have occurred on that issue alone.  I recommend this episode.  It is less than forty minutes long and thought provoking.  Mooney does try to not get sidetracked by his favorite topic of Republican vs. Democratic mind too much.  The discussion was more than just on GM crops, but on where some in the environmental movement don't always rely upon the best evidence.  I am sure Lynas and Mooney had more than a few upset listeners on this episode.  

*My dad was a practicing physician at the time, and the governor asked that all medical personnel stay in the area just in case.  So, my mom, sister, and I went off to our grandparents, and dad stayed behind.  At some point we spoke to dad on the phone and he shared that he was now glowing green.  Not a funny joke to a first and fourth graders, luckily we can still joke about it now.  The whole thing was traumatic, we could have been Japan thirty years earlier. 

Why there is a Skeptical Movement, Tent Walls

The Skeptic's primer

“Why there is a Skeptical Movement” is a PDF pamphlet recently authored by Daniel Loxton of Skeptic magazine.  The document is 79 pages long with the last 16 pages dedicated to end notes.  The ‘meat’ of the book is a "mere" 62 packed pages of a broad overview of the history of skepticism, and background of how the modern skeptical movement arose in the disco era of the mid-1970’s.  The form of Loxton’s work puts one in the mind of “Common Sense” or the “Communist Manifesto”-not in its content, but as a primer or guidepost for interested parties.  This is not a tome ala “Reclaiming History” by Vincent Bugliosi, which is a good thing, and the compactness of this work contributes to the material being much more accessible and likely to actually be read by the intended audience.

Founding Father, scientist, ladies man, printer, proto-skeptic

The audience appears to be skeptics who have been drawn into scientific skepticism in the last ten years or so.  I am one such skeptic.  The first part of the pamphlet gives a history of skepticism and the precursors of Skepticism (that is with a capital “S”) dating all the way back to the second century of the common era.  What I found striking is that the questions tackled by skeptics dating back centuries have not changed.  Skeptical investigations and works were done debunking medical frauds, ghosts, witches, psychics, and cryptids.  Most of which were amazingly familiar claims as I read about everyday on Doubtful News or the mainstream media.  Yes, even one of the Founding Fathers of the United States was doing skeptic type work.  Skeptics stand in the shoes of some historical giants. 

Loxton spends a portion of his work describing how the modern skeptical movement came to be in the mid-1970’s to fill a gap that mainstream science chose not to or was unable to tackle and the lay media and people did not have the skills to investigate paranormal or pseudo-scientific claims.  Loxton outlines how and why the ‘classic’ bounders of skepticism tackling only empirical claims came to be. 

The final portion of the piece describes the limitations and pitfalls that Skeptics can run into if a skeptic discusses scientific or philosophical topics beyond one’s expertise.  What can a Skeptic do and how can one be of use and assistance if one is not a working scientist, or have the illusionist background of a James Randi or Harry Houdini.  Loxton makes the case that what Skeptics do is not to get a win, or defeat questionable claims of the cultural competition, but keep on keeping on.  Like a fireman, the task never ends; without being active, things might be even worse.

I enjoyed this work a great deal.  I found the history of skepticism and early proto-skepticism fascinating.  Admittedly, I am sympathetic to Loxton’s argument for classic bounds and limits of scientific skepticism.  I can easily see an actual book three times in length being expanded out of this work, and I would love to read such a work.  However, as a manifesto of what ought to constitute scientific skepticism this could very well be a primary work for future skeptics to read. 

Inadvertent tent breaching 

Reading Loxton’s work began me thinking on the subject, which I have pondered from time to time.  The idea of one person having related but separated interests that one keeps apparent by wearing a ‘different hat’ at different times.  Loxton refers to keeping the skeptical tent separated from other tents in the rationalist camp.  This way the walls of the various rationalist tents do not get breached.  The skeptics stick to skeptical activities.  The atheists do atheist activities.  The humanists do humanist things.  While a person might belong to one or more groups, the groups stay separated.   To an extent, I agree with the idea that a person can be at a skeptical conference and wear the skeptic hat, but then attend an atheist conference or feminist conference and wear a separate hat at each keeping.  Yet, at a certain point, this starts to break down. Not for the individual, but for the groups.  

model of the various tents in the rationalist circus town

A foot soldier skeptic can attend a skeptical conference and then a month later give money to an atheist organization and I reasonably believe the walls between two are still firmly in place.  However, once a person attends a certain level of prominence, the individual person might be able to keep separate hats on their head, but the person’s presence in itself can breach the tent walls between groups.  It starts becoming less about the individual and more about doing a disservice to the organization they take an interest in. 

If Terry is prominent in the rationalist community and speaks at Mega-Skeptic Con and then in a few months speaks at Mega-Atheist Con to outsiders and perhaps even a few of those within the various rationalist movements, the presence of Terry in itself blurs the line between the two groups.  Terry can be exquisitely careful to not blur the lines between the groups during the two talks, and even in banter with fellow conference members.  However, the well known and popular Terry being a skeptic and an atheist itself blurs the lines.  People know Terry as that skeptical atheist, and not Terry an atheist who happens to be a skeptic.  At some point, what hat Terry is wearing at any given time is irrelevant to the presence of the same person (regardless of headgear) at both tents.  Terry's mere presence could be perceived as breaching the walls between the various groups. 

I am not sure there is an easy solution to this breaching the walls between rationalist tents.  However, I do think when one reaches a certain level of notoriety the individual has to consider if they are in part harming the organizations they are intending to support by exercising prominent support for two or more groups. 

Token Skeptic, Be Reasonable

History books.  You should read one.

History.  It’s something I find highly interesting and engaging.  As many readers might already know, I was a history major in undergrad, and the love of its study has remained with me from my childhood through adulthood.  While I do not expect everyone to share my level of interest, I do find it discouraging what a poor working knowledge most people have of history.  What might be worse is the utter lack of desire by some to even reach basic levels of understanding as if Wikipedia has made learning history irrelevant.  I have learned mostly the War of the Rebellion, some medieval, and the history of the two World Wars.  There are other areas that I have dabbled in such as the economic history of the West and some English and classical histories, but my command of skeptical history is sadly null. 

Daniel Loxton of Skeptic magazine has set out to rectify this situation for skeptics by publishing a PDF entitled “Why is There a Skeptical Movement.”  The document, which is currently resting on my iPad waiting to be read, is the main topic of an interview of Loxton by Kylie Sturgess on the lastest Token Skeptic podcast.  Loxton shares that not only does skepticism’s past reach back 2,000 years, but there are numerous people for whom modern skeptics owe a great debt, but are mostly lost to the passage of time and attention.   Loxton points out that the current debate of what is the working definition of skepticism and what skeptical activism should encompass cannot be appreciated without a knowledge of our collective skeptical past.  Harry Houdini and Martin Gardner did not invent skepticism out of whole cloth.  

Loxton, who spent two years drafting this work, admits he has merely scratched the surface with this effort.  I salute him for scratching the surface, and hope others follow because I agree with Loxton that with the great influx of skeptics into skepdom since about 2005 (of which I am one) having little grounding in skepticism past, and how modern skepticism came to be.  The current debate that waxes and wanes online about the scope of skepticism might benefit if we all had a better understanding where things have been in the past.  I found this interview the most fascinating discussion regarding the current skeptical internal debates.  While I have read the articles attempting to bring greater civility to the skeptical debate by Dr. Steven Novella and D.J. Grothe, perhaps Loxton has the right idea of starting from square one.  Before one can engage in the current discussion, people should first get an idea about the people whose shoulders we are standing upon.  For any skeptic caught up with or familiar with current arguments this episode is a must listen. 

One version of a flat Earth map

The Earth is flat.  Ok.  I think there is far more evidence in favor that the Earth is an oblong spheroid than it is flat.  However, there still are folks who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat.  Hayley Stevens and Michael "Marsh" Marshall of the Be Reasonable podcast interview Michael Wilmore of the Flat Earth Society, who professes (and seemed genuine about it) that the Earth is flat.  The little over an hour interview was a fascinating listen as Stevens and Marsh respectfully challenge the ideas of Wilmore.  The interview discussed the different versions of belief in the flat Earth, and the differing sects of flat Earthers' theories on what causes gravity.  Different groups with the society have differing notions of what a true map of the world looks like.  Wilmore gave a brief history of flat Earth beliefs in the modern world.  

Marsh brought up the issue on whether the circular Earth view is a conspiracy told to the masses, and Wilmore's handling of what is a tricky topic I found absorbing.  This would mean scientists, governments, and heck astronauts might all have to be in on the subterfuge.  Marsh and Stevens never really got into why the flat Earth should be hidden from the public, but other than that it was an excellent skeptical interview of an offbeat topic.  This show is well worth the listen.  

Endorsed by The Skeptical Review.  We read it, so should you.

Thoughts on Branding

Branding.  No, not what cowboys do to cattle.  

No Cattle were harmed in this blog post.

The other Branding that super cool cad Don Draper (aka Dick Whitman) does for a living.  Almost everyone who publishes in skepdom has developed a brand of some sort that consumers of skepticism attach to a person, entity, or group.  Some spend more time and effort honing their brand than others. 

A strong enough brand can also assist in helping a group or entity through a difficult time, and give cover to individuals within the group.  John Lennon noted in the 1970’s that during the 1965-ish period of Beatlemania he was going through a “fat Elvis” period. However, nobody recognized John's down period because the Beatles were larger than any individual problems even though the song HELP! is a cry for actual assistance.  I suspect in part that one reason Derek Colanduno has been able to carry on with podcasting during the well known ups and downs of his show and format changes over the history of his show is that “Skepticality” is a potent brand.  If Derek had tried the current format without the Skepticality name, I suspect the show would be less popular.  The brand I would argue helped to carry things forward.  

For my money, the master of branding a skeptical podcast  is “Skeptoid's” own Brian Dunning at “Skeptoid.com.”  (You can hear him saying that phrase in your head, right?) If you are a skeptic and you don’t know about Skeptoid and its URL, then you need some help.  Quickly moving up in branding is Sharon Hill, cornering the market on “Doubt.”  She has iDoubtit as her twitter handle, and “Doubtful News” and “Doubtful” websites as well as “Doubtful Views” on the new Skeptical Connections podcast.  It’s actually rather brilliant much like Apple has cornered the market on “iWhatever-awesome-product” as soon as a skeptic hears “Doubt” one thinks Sharon Hill, a trusted name in skeptical circles. 

Branding can just occur.  I am sure when the Skeptics Guide to the Universe began they did not expect “SGU” and “Rogue” to be synonymous with the show.  Now even my dog probably knows that SGU is a podcast of some note.  Within the show, Dr. Steven Novella is a brand in himself known for his calm, cool, level-headed nerdy reasoning able to take on the likes of Dr. Oz on Oz’s own tv show.  Rebecca Watson is a brand unto herself within the SGU and Skepchick.  I would venture that Watson’s own brand is larger than the Skepchick organization.  

Then there is some branding that I suspect could hurt the delivery of the underlying content.  One is “Dumbass” aka “Parrot” of the Dumbass Media Empire of podcasts.  While I get the joke that Parrot does not take himself too seriously and “Dumbass” is part of the joke, I do think it is too self-deprecating or too negative a term to get in the way of some excellent material Dumbass delivers.   

When School News Papers were made of actual paper

To some extent while the term Skeptic is something that those who subscribe to scientific skeptical worldview should fight to own from truthers, climate change crank, and the like, it has its drawbacks.  This very Skeptical Review, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, Skepticality, Skeptic Zone, etc. comes with the baggage of the misconceptions of the word, skeptic.  People are going to color their view of a product even before listening to it for good or bad due to the “skep.”  Anecdotally, when I was in undergrad a friend and I co-wrote a weekly political column in the school paper.  We struggled with giving it a name that did not project a view point before the material was read.  Other columns in the paper had names “Debunking America,” “Conservative Corner,” and I believe “the Left Bank” had a short run.  We picked the name “Political Prism.”  Overall it did what we wanted, we could opine from any viewpoint and tick off both sides of the political spectrum on a weekly basis.  I think new skeptical endeavors would be wise to be skeptical and forthright but not plaster skeptic in their title or masthead.     


A small aside:
I do very little to promote my own Brand.  Sure, The Skeptical Review has morphed into plain old 'SkepReview,' but that just sort of happened.  I recently read a discussion online regarding annoying online pseudonyms, and it reminded me on why I picked Nigel St. Whitehall. (at least in part)  I didn't want to have a 'handle' like "Festersmess" or "THX1139."  I wanted something that looked like a real name, but was off just enough to be memorable.  I also wanted it to sound slightly nerdy since my own name, Howard, is pretty nerdy.  I thought at the time Nigel fit the bill.  I am not sure if I have fully succeeded, but I don't think I failed.

*edited for grammar error*

Conspiracy talk returns to TWiT

Just a quick observation listening to a non-skeptic podcast:

On "This Week in Tech" on the TWiT network conspiracy mongering reared its head again. Instead of Adam Curry discussing the purported lunar landing hoax Curry's co-host, John C. Dvorak, from the "No Agenda" podcast was discussing the Russian meteorite. Dvorak, popular and well known technology journalist, discussed how there is something phony with the meteor as the object allegedly left a perfect whole in the ice of a frozen Russian lake. Dvorak surmised that a meteorite ought to have blown it up and not just left a hole. Also suspicious according to Dvorak were meteors seen over San Francisco and Cuba, but not much discussed. For Dvorak, this does not add up.

Dvorak did not share what he thought the real story on the meteor might be, but he did share that his co-host Curry thought it might have to do with an asteroid mining operation gone awry. Dvorak is known as a curmudgeon, and by many as a bit of a crank after all the "No Agenda" podcast is not on any possible pro scientific skepticism podcast lists. Popular and beloved host of TWiT, Leo Leporte, did not act supportive of Dvorak's idea and was a bit submissive of it. Yet, Leporte in a way certainly invited Dvorak to share his theory with panel and audience if only for entertainment value.

As a bonus Dvorak shared that Los Angeles police officer, Chris Dorner's, death and manhunt was phony too. Leporte cut Dvorak off at this non-tech story and moved on to other topics.

Leporte and Dvorak are famously friends and colleagues for many years, and it is understandable that one cannot surround themselves with non-odd or quirky people at all times. While Leporte is not running a skeptical podcast, I just wish when such oddball and frankly dubious topics arise he would handle the situation a firmer grip.

-produced on Blogger app.

Skeptical Connections, Point of Inquiry

New podcast attempting a different point of view

A new podcast has gone into production entitled Skeptical Connections hosted by Marc David Barnhill. Yes, I know, another skeptical podcast? What can another skeptical podcast offer that isn’t already being done or covered by other skeptical podcasts. I must admit even at the Skeptical Review, I am overwhelmed with the amount material that is being produced in skepdom.

SC opens with Barnhill explaining the tact of this show is exploring skepticism and skeptical thought in broader contexts including popular culture, parenting, and the roots of racisim. While the show might touch upon more traditional skeptical topics such as UFOs, conspiracies and that crafty ole Big Foot from time to time, the show has a goal of attempting to examine daily and broad range of topics through the lens of scientific skepticism. 

The show is divided into segments with each five to ten minute segment hosted by a different skeptic. Think of the first half of Skepticality, and followed by an interview segment. Again this echoes Skepticality but with a more button down feel.

This WiFi is going to kill us all! (or not)

The inaugural episode featured three segments: the first entitled "Doubtful Views," given by Sharon Hill. (Hill has corned the skeptical market on Doubtful, as Apple has managed to corner the market on iWhatever in technology.) Robert J. Blaskiewicz, of Skeptical Humanities shared a wrap up to his “Burzynski Birthday” cancer fund raiser for St. Jude's Children's hospital. Kevin Keith in his segment discussed why skeptics aren’t more fun, and then after these three segments Barnhill interviewed Dr. Jeanne Garbarino of Rockefeller University and Doublescience blog.

Blaskiewicz fighting woo with his fairy friends. - no wait, huh?

I found all of the segments interesting.  In particular Hill discussed the current flap over alleged Wifi and electromagnetic induced illness.  Hill's segment was an indictment of the mass media continuing to give a platform for this at best dubious claim that has little to no grounding in science.   I also found Blaskiewicz's segment particularly interesting and uplifting.  Blaskiewicz shared a brief his how his cancer fund raiser came to be organized.  In these unfortunate days of skeptical infighting Blaskiewicz was able to pool the assistance of Prof. P.Z. Myers, Skepchick, Kylie Strugess, the JREF among others to rally around a cause.  To me it is a relief that a wide swath of skepdom can still work together when the cause is just.  A hat tip to Blaskiewicz is more than deserving for all his hard work and as well as to those who helped in this worthy cause.  Although in a weird way I almost wish to thank Dr. Burzynski for being such a handy target and rallying point, but his treatments are so dubious and the damage so sad, I won't.

Overall, I enjoyed the episode. The production values in general were good, and the content interesting.  As noted the goal of the show is to cover topics, at least in part, that is more than just the traditional skeptical big tent topics.  After all scepticism and rationalism can and should be applied to all parts of our lives.  I think I will have to listen to more episode to see if I connect with what Barnhill is pitching. As I am not sure based upon the topics covered on this episode represented anyting noticable different from what other skeptics have covered and discussed.  I think the show's goal to be met a tight editorial viewpoint will have to maintained, and it be with great interest to see if such a point of view will can can be maintained.  I hope to revisit this show after a few months to report on how successful the show is in this regard, and in general.  There is some real promise.

Don't know much about Ingersoll

Robert Ingersoll. I know very little about Robert Ingersoll, although I think as a proper skeptic and person aware of the other free thought groups I ought to know more about him. Well, this week on Point of Inquiry Chris Mooney interviewed Susan Jacoby author of a new book The Great Agnostic: Robert Ingersoll and American Freethought.

Ingersoll Speaking

Susan is the author of Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism and The Age of American Unreason. Obviously, given her background Jacoby has the chops to write on the great free thinking communicating of the 19th century in America. I am fascinated that Ingersoll discussing whether god existed was not run out of the various towns he spoke on a rail. Jacoby discusses how speakers such as Ingersoll lived in a world where people had the ability and desire to sit through three hour lectures, and learn about controversial topics. The audiences were attending to listen to someone who they knew might not agree, but were willing to be entertained and learn a little something. It's weird to think as the world in general has become more tolerant in many ways in some ways discussing religious subjects might have had a more receptive audience 120 plus years ago.

It was an interesting interview, and I suspect one of my next ebooks will be Jacoby's work. I will say the only draw back to the interview is that Mooney and Jacoby sort of spoke past each other a bit. It was a bit off, but nothing serious. It was a good episode.