"Hey, you guys!"
Back 2 Square 1 has a new episode, 013 Dark-Lilith Visitation.
Show Notes:
While you guys won't necessarily notice the difference, though B2S1 tries to be posted by Monday. we recorded this show on Sunday and this explains a Tuesday posting. Dark-Lilith returns! ...well, for at least most of the episode before she leaves to help a friend. Glacier Wulf also jets at the same time, too. We bitch as usual about a bunch of things. There is a lot of "fuck" in this episode. We figure out what iTunes categories this show should be on and discuss Osyris' sexual orientation- again. Osyris also goes off on the debate about the Universal Healthcare legislation in Congress. Through the wisdom of the digital Doom Dice & List, we speak on XBOX-360, Steve Jobs' new iLiver 2.0, and other game related topics, we touch on the Rorschach Test/Wikipedia controversy, Osyris poorly explains "Cold Reading", the Shit List is visited, we tried to explode Kitty Kat's head, he give a shout out to the crew of "That Damn Red Boat", Osyris and Johnny-B compare bra sizes, we watch some Jimmy Justice and comment on "The Beer Summit", Buddy causes some minor mayhem, we talk about movies (Brüno, G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, District 9), Kirkland Signature Beer is brought up, under the topic Government, we discuss the Supreme Court and its role in America, then we role over into the ethics and production of podcasting in general and verses traditional radio (including how B2S1 is made and its content), we give you a preview of things to come on B2S1 and the logic the will effect future episodes, we give a shout out to Reto, long-lost B2S1 co-host likely still battling the Battle Cat, The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Reasonable Doubts, and No Agenda are uses as a contrast to B2S1, after Johnny-B takes a piss, we move into the stalled housing developments around Auburn, Kent, and Covington, Wa. and have a trip down memory lane about our old high school Kentlake. There, of course, if a bunch of other material covered not mentioned in these notes so listen to the show to get all the juicy goodness!
Send your replies, rebukes, retorts, and/or rebuttals to: radioosyris@gmail.com
Showing posts with label skepticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skepticism. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Reflections...
You know, I'll never get any blog to the point where people consistently read it; and that's okay with me. Why? Because it's really too much work. Unless you're already a notable person or someone with no life, most people don't have the time to put into blogging, or the pimping of it on other related sites. I dislike reading skeptical forums, for example, because I get very little out of them and I can usually contribute even less. Read other blogs is okay but I often don't comment so who is gonna know about this? Not enough that it will matter, but here I can express myself in an open way and not care too much because not enough people know about it to make a difference; and I'm fine with that...
So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.
For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.
Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.
I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...
So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.
Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.
While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.
What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).
Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.
So, with school out there's nothing really to talk about on that end and honestly, there's not been much on the religious end either. I've listen to the latest "Reasonable Doubts" but haven't heard much to blog about. So what about skepticism? Well, what is there to say? For all that it is a marked improvement from Christianity, of which I partook my reality for most of my life, sometimes I wanna bang my head against a wall. When I listen to the skeptical angle, most of the time I agree with it, and when I listen to the believe end, I usually end up scratching my head. Still, there are times where I think the believe makes a good point while I wanna slap the crap outta the skeptic. I know nothing is perfect or always puts its best foot forward but sometimes I wonder where one draws the line.
For example: Sasquatch. While I am a "Bigfoot Hopeful", as Brian Dunning put it, the likelihood of its existence thus was is slim to none in my book. When you listen to enough of the believer's side, you begin to question things; which is good. Still, I have yet to be persuaded to believe anything more than whatever people are experiencing or think they are experiencing is something worth investigating, even if it is all in the mind. It's not that Sasquatch does not exist per say, it is that when one starts with a null hypothesis, the end conclusion for the creature is dubious at best with an inconclusive or negative. Yet, ask a random skeptic and their likely answer will be laughter or a very confident no. Granted, I, too, am confident in my stance but the stance refereed to above is one of total confidence, like the type you give to gravity. They don't even give it a second thought; and perhaps not without understandable reasons.
Is this proper skepticism? No, and I'm not the first skeptic to discuss this. My angle on the topic is this: the arrogance I get from how certain topics are handled by certain skeptics, skeptics in general, or groups of skeptics, reeks of the same B.S. that got me to despise church and Christianity in general. Yep, I went there. Now, I fully understand the human limitations in play here and I don't expect perfection from no one, but it bugs me when I try for something different and it's seems less than a 180 and more like a mirror: reversed views, same stank subject. While I enjoy listening to the skeptical and believer podcasts, sometimes I just wanna slap 'em both. While I try to be interactive in the MABRC forum, the discussions I've come across on the JREF forums and others lead me to the conclusion that I will just get upset if I interact with those sites and likely cannot contribute anything worthwhile to them. Pessimistic? Maybe, be I think more realistic.
I'm not that well verses in any particular subject, I just know enough to keep pace in most conversations. I'm opinionated and can speak my mind but little that will do with people who are very superior debaters. That is another factors that tweaks me. It seems most things in life have NOTHING to no with right & wrong, truth & fiction, etc. but rather how one present an argument. Thus, you can be completely wrong yet win an argument and thus be "right". Facts appearently mean little in this world of believers and skeptics. Even if Sasquatch is real, for example, because of the lack of evidence and such one can successfully argue against a unknown truth. Conversely, those who peddle woo and other BS can win over their case with sly wording or better debate skills. What is the point then of someone like me in all this? I can mark the odd comment about what works and what doesn't or cast doubt or insight onto a random topic but sowing seeds is not my cup of tea. Most of my seeds die anyway...
So I liken to shows like "No Agenda" and see a lot of what I learned in my communication classes about the bs that appears to dictate and govern this planet. Monsanto might be evil, but it's certainly not unique. I listened to the "Skeptoid" episode about Monsanto and all the type around it, as I have the one about Wal-Mart, and while Dunning brings up good points every conspiracy theorist should take heed, he does seem to miss out on the real negative impacts these places are having. While I agree mostly with his arguments presented during the episodes, he seems to miss the point about black listed farmers and government manipulation of health standards. Unique? No, but just as dangerous as ever. Is the danger over-hyped by these people who see Monsanto as the "Great Satan"? Perhaps, but these same conspiracy theorists often bring up great points that are all too often overshadowed by more ludicrous claims.
Even if they feel it true, it might behoove them to keep out the more fringe elements of their beliefs to focus on topics of concern that they can get the most people to back, thereby bolstering their desires to overturn the evil empires of the planet by getting more people to be proactive in their governments. "No Agenda", for example, time and again does a lot of good informing the podcasting public about a lot of bs in North America, Europe, and other places that needs to be addressed. However, its host Adam Curry likes to go off the deep end with some extreme world government fears. While I agree with John C. Dvorak more often than not, he does not seem to provide a larger balance to Curry's agenda. While I have no problem with what Curry thinks, I fear his holistic world view scares off too many listeners. He needs to focus more on what can be done rather than lamenting most episodes how he and his listeners will only live longer but cannot escape our impending doom.
While most skeptics might balk about supporting such a show as "No Agenda", again it proves as a good example of good information being present along with a lot of bs anti-vaccination rhetoric and NWO scare-tactics. Yet, when one looks into things like the Lisbon Treaty, the current rushed trials for Swine Flu/Mexican Flu vaccines, the proposed US health care reform bill, etc. and how all of these are being handled and their contents, it should give anyone cause for pause. I would write Adam and John about these concerns but I'd likely be labeled a government shill and at best just ignored. It was a remains a good show with good information but as of now and for a while now "No Agenda" has been a lacking in a lot of way towards content, objective analysis, and believability. This said, it has a record of observations that cannot be ignored.
What is a skeptic to do? What is a communication student to do? "Skepticality" and "Skeptics' Guide to the Universe" are great escapes back to sanity and science yet sometimes I wonder whether all this critical thinking, skepticism, and the like is really being put to good use. Fuck the conspiracy nutters, there is a shit-ton of negative stuff going on that anyone with half a brain and realize and understand. While I support the school focus and anti-woo and pro-science focus that skepticism had currently I think it needs to refocus its efforts on reforming government. Why? Because just like with humanity destroying this planet in various ways, we need to clean up things locally and then move up to larger projects, as such will make the bigger things no so challenging. Corruption needs to be addressed, as does a lot of political overburden and bs. Adding to these efforts will help expose the lack of evil empire plus do something even the believers can get behind. The same efforts to get homeopathy loopholes fix also helps towards cleaning up the government in general (this statement and some others are more US-centric but they can also apply internationally).
Skeptics need to listen to "Rage Against the Machine" more and realize that there are things that need to be addressed that have multiple positive outcomes, including the often more narrow focuses taken by a majority of skeptics. Skeptics should be going over government documents, like the Lisbon Treaty, Patriot Act, etc. and helping to expose the bs and helping their fellow countrymen/women understand what is going on. It is not enough just to go after 9-11 truthers. In fact, I would go as far as to say most skeptics should ignore them, for there are enough who will address them, and focus instead on holding the government to account over the inconsistencies and sidestepping that the US government has done about the topic and help expose the real truth that is being hidden by political double-speak and legislative wording. Such can be applied to other areas that skeptics love or loath to tread. How do you make skepticism sexy, marketable, and truly successful? You make its output practical, progressive, and productive to the wider world.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Zicam maker pulls products, but affirms safety
"Upset with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Zicam maker Matrixx Initiatives Inc. has withdrawn two of its cold remedy nasal products even though company officials maintain the products are safe.
The FDA said it received more than 130 complaints from consumers saying they have lost their sense of smell after using the products.
[...]
William Hemelt, acting president and chief operating officer of Matrixx, said the FDA action was taken without reviewing research he would have been more than willing to provide.
“We think the science does not support this allegation at all,” he said. “Quite honestly, we would not be selling the product if we thought it was unsafe.”
Zicam products use a homeopathic remedy called Zincum Gluconicum 2x, which means they require FDA approval.
[...]
Brett Berty, a senior recall strategist at Stericycle Inc. in Lake Forest, Ill., is coming to Phoenix this week to meet with Matrixx officials to see if he can help the company with damage control.
Usually, he said, companies will voluntarily recall a product before the FDA gets involved. That’s not how it happened with Matrixx. The FDA stepped in and warned Matrixx that it had received more than 130 consumer complaints and that the company needed to stop marketing the product until it can put a warning label on its packaging that it could cause anosmia.
[...]
When the FDA sent the warning letter to Matrixx and advised consumers not to use certain Zicam cold remedies, on June 16, Matrixx’s stock plummeted 70 percent to $5.78 a share. It bounced up a bit to $6.13 a day later, but nowhere near its 52-week high of $19.74, near its trading point before the FDA sent the warning letter.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Matrixx reported $13.8 million in net income on $112 million in net sales, up from $10.4 million in net income on $101 million in net sales a year ago.
Hemelt said he will be meeting with FDA regulators to discuss the issue. He also scheduled a conference call with investors.
The FDA advises against using:
Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel
Zicam Cold Remedy Gel Swabs
Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs-Kid Size"
The FDA said it received more than 130 complaints from consumers saying they have lost their sense of smell after using the products.
[...]
William Hemelt, acting president and chief operating officer of Matrixx, said the FDA action was taken without reviewing research he would have been more than willing to provide.
“We think the science does not support this allegation at all,” he said. “Quite honestly, we would not be selling the product if we thought it was unsafe.”
Zicam products use a homeopathic remedy called Zincum Gluconicum 2x, which means they require FDA approval.
[...]
Brett Berty, a senior recall strategist at Stericycle Inc. in Lake Forest, Ill., is coming to Phoenix this week to meet with Matrixx officials to see if he can help the company with damage control.
Usually, he said, companies will voluntarily recall a product before the FDA gets involved. That’s not how it happened with Matrixx. The FDA stepped in and warned Matrixx that it had received more than 130 consumer complaints and that the company needed to stop marketing the product until it can put a warning label on its packaging that it could cause anosmia.
[...]
When the FDA sent the warning letter to Matrixx and advised consumers not to use certain Zicam cold remedies, on June 16, Matrixx’s stock plummeted 70 percent to $5.78 a share. It bounced up a bit to $6.13 a day later, but nowhere near its 52-week high of $19.74, near its trading point before the FDA sent the warning letter.
For the fiscal year ended March 31, Matrixx reported $13.8 million in net income on $112 million in net sales, up from $10.4 million in net income on $101 million in net sales a year ago.
Hemelt said he will be meeting with FDA regulators to discuss the issue. He also scheduled a conference call with investors.
The FDA advises against using:
Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel
Zicam Cold Remedy Gel Swabs
Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs-Kid Size"
Zicam maker pulls products, but affirms safety
Phoenix Business Journal - by Angela Gonzales
Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 2:49pm MST | Modified: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 5:33am
---
Well, besides the fact that Zicam is not homeopathic because it has an active ingredient (So why hasn't ANYONE tried suing them over false advertisement/mislabeling/misleading labels/etc.!?), this goes to show you that such a mentality that either exploits to tries to ascribe their products to homeopathy are not to be trusted. Granted, legitimate drugs have the same issue and the damage control the parent company is doing is not uncommon or unexpected. Still, since the general public often fails or cannot distinguish between science and bullshit, I can only hope this goes to showing the "dangers" of the practice; insomuch as it is not a perfect wonder-alternative. Maybe a good dose of "reality" will help towards the eradication of this bile. Likely not the most skeptical or scientifically valid stance on the matter but I hope you are smart enough to get what I mean.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Why Skeptics Should NOT Hoax
So I was listening to SasquatchWatch Radio on my iPod and the 25 May 2009 edition talked about hoaxing and who people do it. It is a mildly informative episode certainly worth taking a listen to. (Yes, I am a fan of the show. What!? A skeptic can't enjoy a Bigfoot radio show!?) Anyway, the topic of skeptics (or others) preforming hoaxes, usually for the purposes of proving that humans, or specifically believers, can easily be fooled. One of the more well known and recent examples if the Pen and Teller stunt for their HBO show Bullshit!. (I believe it was highlighted on the first episode of season 4 entitled "Cryptozoology".) The discussion of the topic in general and of this example in particular gave me cause to pause.
Why do skeptics hoax?
If it was back in the day (whenever that is) before such stunts were preformed and the goal was demonstrating that people can be fooled, it might make sense. However, most sensible people already realize the limitations of human perception and if anyone says they cannot be fooled, skeptic or believer, then they are primary target for just chuck a fooling. Still, we are in the here and now and unless you are trying to provide a point that a certain event can be reproduced though trickery, that is one thing and certainly NOT hoaxing. Hoaxing, remember, is (often) a deliberate act to deceive, usually with personal benefits to the hoaxer. (Doesn't sound too dissimilar to lying, does it?) We could argue specifics but let us keep to a base straightforward scenario for this definition.
Should skeptic hoax?
What hoaxing (by anyone) does is expose the limitations on a given piece of evidence, whether that is eye-witness testimony, photo or video images, or even physical signs, items, or features. Beyond that, it does little to reveal anything that most honest believers and skeptics alike don't already know. Most believer in Bigfoot should/do admit the limits of their evidence, but they insist that there is nonetheless evidence. More skeptics should be aware of this and not offhandedly dismiss the topic entirely. If the common skeptical logic is correct and there is (likely) no Bigfoot, then how does one expect to persuade believers if all you do is insult and isolate them from your cause? If the believer is right and there are Bigfoot, then acknowledging the limitations of the current evidence, even if it is more compelling than mainstream science is willing to admit, is key to focusing on new and better lines of evidence.
Answer?
Bottom line here is that skeptics should NOT hoax because there is no point and if anything it further isolates your potential audience of believers and only degrading your stance by insulting those who truly believe something is out there. This, of course, applies to all areas of pseudo-science and cryptozoology. If anything, Bullshit! should have attempted to take up the challenge of a specific person or group that claimed immunity to being duped or could (easily) discern a hoax. Here, a point can easily be made. In its current incarnation, the Bullshit! Bigfoot video is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worse because of its redundant nature and undefined criteria for new net results. This negative effect can also extend into those on the fence or the general public, who will view such repetitive antics as silly or even vindictive, if not dumb and pointless.
Why do skeptics hoax?
If it was back in the day (whenever that is) before such stunts were preformed and the goal was demonstrating that people can be fooled, it might make sense. However, most sensible people already realize the limitations of human perception and if anyone says they cannot be fooled, skeptic or believer, then they are primary target for just chuck a fooling. Still, we are in the here and now and unless you are trying to provide a point that a certain event can be reproduced though trickery, that is one thing and certainly NOT hoaxing. Hoaxing, remember, is (often) a deliberate act to deceive, usually with personal benefits to the hoaxer. (Doesn't sound too dissimilar to lying, does it?) We could argue specifics but let us keep to a base straightforward scenario for this definition.
Should skeptic hoax?
What hoaxing (by anyone) does is expose the limitations on a given piece of evidence, whether that is eye-witness testimony, photo or video images, or even physical signs, items, or features. Beyond that, it does little to reveal anything that most honest believers and skeptics alike don't already know. Most believer in Bigfoot should/do admit the limits of their evidence, but they insist that there is nonetheless evidence. More skeptics should be aware of this and not offhandedly dismiss the topic entirely. If the common skeptical logic is correct and there is (likely) no Bigfoot, then how does one expect to persuade believers if all you do is insult and isolate them from your cause? If the believer is right and there are Bigfoot, then acknowledging the limitations of the current evidence, even if it is more compelling than mainstream science is willing to admit, is key to focusing on new and better lines of evidence.
Answer?
Bottom line here is that skeptics should NOT hoax because there is no point and if anything it further isolates your potential audience of believers and only degrading your stance by insulting those who truly believe something is out there. This, of course, applies to all areas of pseudo-science and cryptozoology. If anything, Bullshit! should have attempted to take up the challenge of a specific person or group that claimed immunity to being duped or could (easily) discern a hoax. Here, a point can easily be made. In its current incarnation, the Bullshit! Bigfoot video is unproductive at best and counterproductive at worse because of its redundant nature and undefined criteria for new net results. This negative effect can also extend into those on the fence or the general public, who will view such repetitive antics as silly or even vindictive, if not dumb and pointless.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Rebirth! Or, Phoenix Down & Skill Change
For those of you who care... all none of you... I finally figured out what I wanted to do with this blog. While my livejournal will be left more for random stuff, which you can sill check out to your immediate right in the RSS section, this blog I will try to make into a skeptical/critical thinking/non-theist based endeavor that allows me to take on the skeptical world from my own sad lacking little world. As you might have noted from many of the previous posts, there was more skepticism and other religious (or lack thereof)-based items anyway. So hopefully once school is let out, I will be able to focus on this thing a little more and help gain a name for myself beside an avid podcast listener to such topics. So no more "Writer's Banter". Sorry but I have other places to write the little I have to say on my most enduring and centric hobby of mine. I write stuff, not writing about writing stuff. Once I have time, Back 2 Square 1 will also be getting an overhaul with a lot of stuff so wish me luck as I finish off this Spring Quarter and welcome in the summer (in two/three or so weeks)!
So, why don't I just do things the easy way and use forums to interact with other skeptics? 'Cause I don't need to plunge myself into an ego war. Srsly, like any pseudo-science BBS, many of the same problems I've come to loath across the interwebs is found in both the good guys and bad guys little chunk of the intertubes. While I will likely have to starting being proactive in these cesspools of hate and discontent to start getting any type of readership, I try to avoid them when I can. In fact, about the only forum I am a member of with any regularity is for the MABRC; yep, a Bigfoot forum. It also happens to be the only group I am officially associated with (as their official skeptic, no less!). Maybe it would behoove me to find either a local or regional or national group to join but again I just don't feel the need to join another support group (like church). I've always been a bit of a loaner in this respect (more by necessity than anything) and I have yet to find a skeptical group that I really felt like it was worth taking the time to figure them out and maybe join; and yes, that implies that the MABRC did meet said criteria. It did help that they asked me TWICE to join their organization after I joined their forum (which is right now not publicly accessible due to some spamming and pissing-contect bullshit).
Again, the reasons for (re)starting this blog as simple: when I go to said forum, whether believe or skeptic, I feel rather useless (a topic I have discussed in previous posts). I feel there is no point in me being there as I have (appearently) NOTHING to contribute in any way, shape, or form. While most skeptics would laugh at my sorry attempts to debate Bigfoot proponents over at the forums, I do my best and have done some good work exposing some misconceptions (like the Nebraska-Loess Man v. the Nebraska Man - a topic which I'll highlight in a upcoming post). I need to get back into the swing of things this summer with some rebuttals from some lacking debate with people who appearently think that science is deliberately trying to hide Bigfoot from the rest of the world. Same old story, right? Well, I have some things that will hopefully get a better debate going, though with only member of the MABRC on the forum it will be interesting to see what becomes of my usefulness. I still want to do a Bigfoot expedition. Why? Well, it's not to prove I am a worthy skeptics who is willing to get out into the friend; that argument is just ignorant. No, I want an excuse to camp and satisfy my curiosity as I lament my realization that there is little likelihood of the hairy one out there. Sux!
Oh well, I just want to see what really goes on during these trips and since it is "unreasonable" for me to go half-way cross the country for such a deal and since I do (literally) live on Big Hairy's front doorstep, I might as well see if anyone wants to make a few days of it. I'll keep you all posted on this crazy scheme. Is Bigfoot a sacred calf, as the skeptics say? No, as I continually go after the topic and its faults and do not conclude the current stack of evidence, which is surprisingly more than most skeptics are willing to acknowledge yet still so lacking, is enough. As the great UFO photo says, "I want to believe." However, I think there needs to be another part to that quote, "...but I can't." Why? Lack of solid evidence. Perhaps enough to warrant some minor inquiry but nothing that I would bet the barn on. Still, I think there is something more to this whole deal and I think whatever it is it behooves us skeptics to take the subject from a new angle. Since most other skeptics just brush the subject aside, and usually rightfully so, and it is of great interest to me, why the Hell not? I will stick with what I know and let those who know other things do their stuff.
I would try to join the JREF but they seem as egotistical as the BFF... crikey, I need a bloodly drink before deciding which Hell-mouth to descend into. Until then, I need some sleep; and something to fast-forward time to the summer!
So, why don't I just do things the easy way and use forums to interact with other skeptics? 'Cause I don't need to plunge myself into an ego war. Srsly, like any pseudo-science BBS, many of the same problems I've come to loath across the interwebs is found in both the good guys and bad guys little chunk of the intertubes. While I will likely have to starting being proactive in these cesspools of hate and discontent to start getting any type of readership, I try to avoid them when I can. In fact, about the only forum I am a member of with any regularity is for the MABRC; yep, a Bigfoot forum. It also happens to be the only group I am officially associated with (as their official skeptic, no less!). Maybe it would behoove me to find either a local or regional or national group to join but again I just don't feel the need to join another support group (like church). I've always been a bit of a loaner in this respect (more by necessity than anything) and I have yet to find a skeptical group that I really felt like it was worth taking the time to figure them out and maybe join; and yes, that implies that the MABRC did meet said criteria. It did help that they asked me TWICE to join their organization after I joined their forum (which is right now not publicly accessible due to some spamming and pissing-contect bullshit).
Again, the reasons for (re)starting this blog as simple: when I go to said forum, whether believe or skeptic, I feel rather useless (a topic I have discussed in previous posts). I feel there is no point in me being there as I have (appearently) NOTHING to contribute in any way, shape, or form. While most skeptics would laugh at my sorry attempts to debate Bigfoot proponents over at the forums, I do my best and have done some good work exposing some misconceptions (like the Nebraska-Loess Man v. the Nebraska Man - a topic which I'll highlight in a upcoming post). I need to get back into the swing of things this summer with some rebuttals from some lacking debate with people who appearently think that science is deliberately trying to hide Bigfoot from the rest of the world. Same old story, right? Well, I have some things that will hopefully get a better debate going, though with only member of the MABRC on the forum it will be interesting to see what becomes of my usefulness. I still want to do a Bigfoot expedition. Why? Well, it's not to prove I am a worthy skeptics who is willing to get out into the friend; that argument is just ignorant. No, I want an excuse to camp and satisfy my curiosity as I lament my realization that there is little likelihood of the hairy one out there. Sux!
Oh well, I just want to see what really goes on during these trips and since it is "unreasonable" for me to go half-way cross the country for such a deal and since I do (literally) live on Big Hairy's front doorstep, I might as well see if anyone wants to make a few days of it. I'll keep you all posted on this crazy scheme. Is Bigfoot a sacred calf, as the skeptics say? No, as I continually go after the topic and its faults and do not conclude the current stack of evidence, which is surprisingly more than most skeptics are willing to acknowledge yet still so lacking, is enough. As the great UFO photo says, "I want to believe." However, I think there needs to be another part to that quote, "...but I can't." Why? Lack of solid evidence. Perhaps enough to warrant some minor inquiry but nothing that I would bet the barn on. Still, I think there is something more to this whole deal and I think whatever it is it behooves us skeptics to take the subject from a new angle. Since most other skeptics just brush the subject aside, and usually rightfully so, and it is of great interest to me, why the Hell not? I will stick with what I know and let those who know other things do their stuff.
I would try to join the JREF but they seem as egotistical as the BFF... crikey, I need a bloodly drink before deciding which Hell-mouth to descend into. Until then, I need some sleep; and something to fast-forward time to the summer!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Rethinking Skepticism
This is the body of a latter I sent to a few noted skeptics as a response to Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton's Where Do We Go From Here? and What Do I Do Next?: Leading Skeptics Discuss 105 Practical Ways to Promote Science and Advance Skepticism, which was featured on Skepticality; three times! (Look up episodes 63, 86, & 98).
Firstly, awesome podcast to one and all; and same for the new manifesto, part duo. After reading both works by Loxton (et. al.) and listening to accompanying podcasts, I feel somehow vindicated for my small efforts and pursuits in promoting skepticism and "fighting the good fight" as it were. The 'next steps' list read more like a to-do list that I kept crossing off in certain areas. Granted, this number is quite small compared to the total 105 listed, but the emotional boost was a plus. I would be surprised if no one makes a podcast series out of this, first starting with the original essay and then working through all 105 suggestions. You have a minimum of 106 episodes already, plus any dual-length episodes or expanded topics and possible interviews. By then, the supposed next step in this evolving process of 'evolving skepticism into the modern world' as joked about in the most recent podcast will have been published, allowing for even more content. One might also take up this task from a more "Joe-Skeptic" angle; that is, to take these idea from the perspective of a skeptic not of the ranking of Randi, Dunning, Swoopy, or Watson. It's an idea worth exploring. As for myself, I already try to promote skepticism in my own podcast that covers anything and everything (with commentary all around), in the various postings I make around the interwebs, in my poetry and writing, in my own personal and social life, at work and school, and even am a member of a Bigfoot "research" group as their Official Skeptic (whether or not I'm just the token skeptics is debatable but I'm so-far respected and have not been ostracized ...yet), though so far I have done much of my musing with them through their forums (I'm temped to lead a "field expedition" this summer just for kicks and for the chance to get out into the woods and see what critters and evidence we can 'spook' up!). I'm not making much of a splash but a splash is made and apparently that's what counts.
Some things I have noted in my own interactions with the skeptical movement give me pause to reflect on things. What bugs me to no end about the skeptical movement is the apparent adherence to rhetoric. It is one thing to read a homeopathic claim and have one's doubts, it is quite another to denounce someone's personal experience offhand. It's not that I think they are on to something or should be used as empirical evidence; rather, I fear we as a movement are losing too many potential "converts" due to how many situations are handled. We might not have dogma in the skeptical movement, but you don't need it for others to think that you do. A personal face need to be put back on the name skeptic and believers alike. While shows like "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" are an invaluable resource of information and entertainment for skeptic (and believer), certain talking points and buzz-words, or what appear to be, are all too often sounded-off like at a political rally. While it might better resemble rhetoric as Sophocles and Aristotle knew it, far too often this verbiage resembles the contemporary definition with all its negative and dastardly connotations. As was made clear in an episode of "Skepticality", when a Seattle skeptic overturned many preconceived notions about The Discovery Institute, while affirming others, we skeptics must be careful not to start categorizing believers based on assumed knowledge and stereotypes. Just as skeptics are trying to put a human face back on the movement, there is a very human face to all those who see the world differently, if incorrectly. This effort to re-envision skepticism will utterly fail if the diatribe we speak presents this face-lift as merely a mask to cover an ugly stereotype, which would then prove more fact than fiction. We must be careful to remember that such generalizations are made for a reason, and that the truthful basis for such otherwise bias and narrow-minded views are often much larger than many would like to admit. We must also be sure not to dismiss the concerns or even complaints of believers about skeptics; even the hypocrite can make a valid point. If rhetoric is a "necessary evil", then let it be less about the fundamentals of science as the only way to truth and more about personal relations that bring real change to people who more likely than not truly search for the truth. The rest just comes naturally, as it were. While podcasts and other mass audience forums need a more generalized approach, their model for success should not be the foundation of the "man on the streets", which appears more commons than not.
I find myself less interested in involving myself with most skeptical groupings or events, like forums, local meet-ups, talks, etc., and prefer to listen to podcasts and do my own promotion through my own channels. The reason is simple: I feel stupid and useless in them. It is one thing to expect a certain level of knowledge in a given area, quite another to demand it like a proficiency test to get into MIT or Harvard. Few of us have the time and resources to be adept at a great many things or topics, and certainly for skeptics this broad pool of information is of utmost importance. It is the cornerstone of our ability to understand the world for what it truly is and for how we defend this rational and scientific view of reality. Yet there is a sense of superiority and pompous in many of these skeptical social gatherings that is a major turn off. I do make an effort to acknowledge the failings of the human condition in these instances and admit feeling the arrogance all too often present when one knows that others who are steadfast in their ways are lacking a more clear understanding of reality. This said, when I browse a skeptical forum, I feel I can offer nothing to the conversation and find some of the conversations being had rather disheartening. I also fully admit for sounding off like a bigot on certain religious issues when my banter and opinion gain their peak during my rantings and enjoy inflaming those I might otherwise wish to persuade to my point of view, or at least debate with constructively. However, the line between personal opinion, ranting, and objective understanding are all too often lost in the mix. Like what is seen on any of the news outlets over the last decades, opinion and fact have not been given proper distinguishing lines; such is even more of a problem online. As for the face-to-face skeptical meetings, many reflect the boring features of bible studies from my youth, except there is science in place of scripture and usually beer (both of which I will NEVER complain about). I feel unfulfilled, like with some podcasts. Maybe my experiences are just that ad I do not reflect even a minority of skeptics, but I speak out anyway. While the group gatherings and fellowship with other skeptics is akin to religious believers and church, from a sociological perspective, I think a promotion of "the lone skeptic" might help more become more active in "spreading the faith"... or lack thereof, as it were. Not everyone can serve in such socially-based ways ad it is likely a benefit to have those who are able to go their own way in furthering "the good fight". Standards will always be needed to ensure quality but how they are kept can be done with a lot more heart and a lot less ego by certain individuals. We all are on a never-ending journey to acquire new knowledge ad should never forget it.
I know some of these observations have been touched on in the two essays but I speak them to say my peace. I will continue my own efforts and hope you all will yours. I think these essays are on the right track to breathing new life into the skeptical community. To further this discussion, I will be making then an "open letter", that is, I will also be posting it to a couple of my web-logs. (Just F.Y.I.) Hopefully something worthwhile will come of it all. Until then, thank you all for your time.
Your thoughts?
Firstly, awesome podcast to one and all; and same for the new manifesto, part duo. After reading both works by Loxton (et. al.) and listening to accompanying podcasts, I feel somehow vindicated for my small efforts and pursuits in promoting skepticism and "fighting the good fight" as it were. The 'next steps' list read more like a to-do list that I kept crossing off in certain areas. Granted, this number is quite small compared to the total 105 listed, but the emotional boost was a plus. I would be surprised if no one makes a podcast series out of this, first starting with the original essay and then working through all 105 suggestions. You have a minimum of 106 episodes already, plus any dual-length episodes or expanded topics and possible interviews. By then, the supposed next step in this evolving process of 'evolving skepticism into the modern world' as joked about in the most recent podcast will have been published, allowing for even more content. One might also take up this task from a more "Joe-Skeptic" angle; that is, to take these idea from the perspective of a skeptic not of the ranking of Randi, Dunning, Swoopy, or Watson. It's an idea worth exploring. As for myself, I already try to promote skepticism in my own podcast that covers anything and everything (with commentary all around), in the various postings I make around the interwebs, in my poetry and writing, in my own personal and social life, at work and school, and even am a member of a Bigfoot "research" group as their Official Skeptic (whether or not I'm just the token skeptics is debatable but I'm so-far respected and have not been ostracized ...yet), though so far I have done much of my musing with them through their forums (I'm temped to lead a "field expedition" this summer just for kicks and for the chance to get out into the woods and see what critters and evidence we can 'spook' up!). I'm not making much of a splash but a splash is made and apparently that's what counts.
Some things I have noted in my own interactions with the skeptical movement give me pause to reflect on things. What bugs me to no end about the skeptical movement is the apparent adherence to rhetoric. It is one thing to read a homeopathic claim and have one's doubts, it is quite another to denounce someone's personal experience offhand. It's not that I think they are on to something or should be used as empirical evidence; rather, I fear we as a movement are losing too many potential "converts" due to how many situations are handled. We might not have dogma in the skeptical movement, but you don't need it for others to think that you do. A personal face need to be put back on the name skeptic and believers alike. While shows like "Skeptics Guide to the Universe" are an invaluable resource of information and entertainment for skeptic (and believer), certain talking points and buzz-words, or what appear to be, are all too often sounded-off like at a political rally. While it might better resemble rhetoric as Sophocles and Aristotle knew it, far too often this verbiage resembles the contemporary definition with all its negative and dastardly connotations. As was made clear in an episode of "Skepticality", when a Seattle skeptic overturned many preconceived notions about The Discovery Institute, while affirming others, we skeptics must be careful not to start categorizing believers based on assumed knowledge and stereotypes. Just as skeptics are trying to put a human face back on the movement, there is a very human face to all those who see the world differently, if incorrectly. This effort to re-envision skepticism will utterly fail if the diatribe we speak presents this face-lift as merely a mask to cover an ugly stereotype, which would then prove more fact than fiction. We must be careful to remember that such generalizations are made for a reason, and that the truthful basis for such otherwise bias and narrow-minded views are often much larger than many would like to admit. We must also be sure not to dismiss the concerns or even complaints of believers about skeptics; even the hypocrite can make a valid point. If rhetoric is a "necessary evil", then let it be less about the fundamentals of science as the only way to truth and more about personal relations that bring real change to people who more likely than not truly search for the truth. The rest just comes naturally, as it were. While podcasts and other mass audience forums need a more generalized approach, their model for success should not be the foundation of the "man on the streets", which appears more commons than not.
I find myself less interested in involving myself with most skeptical groupings or events, like forums, local meet-ups, talks, etc., and prefer to listen to podcasts and do my own promotion through my own channels. The reason is simple: I feel stupid and useless in them. It is one thing to expect a certain level of knowledge in a given area, quite another to demand it like a proficiency test to get into MIT or Harvard. Few of us have the time and resources to be adept at a great many things or topics, and certainly for skeptics this broad pool of information is of utmost importance. It is the cornerstone of our ability to understand the world for what it truly is and for how we defend this rational and scientific view of reality. Yet there is a sense of superiority and pompous in many of these skeptical social gatherings that is a major turn off. I do make an effort to acknowledge the failings of the human condition in these instances and admit feeling the arrogance all too often present when one knows that others who are steadfast in their ways are lacking a more clear understanding of reality. This said, when I browse a skeptical forum, I feel I can offer nothing to the conversation and find some of the conversations being had rather disheartening. I also fully admit for sounding off like a bigot on certain religious issues when my banter and opinion gain their peak during my rantings and enjoy inflaming those I might otherwise wish to persuade to my point of view, or at least debate with constructively. However, the line between personal opinion, ranting, and objective understanding are all too often lost in the mix. Like what is seen on any of the news outlets over the last decades, opinion and fact have not been given proper distinguishing lines; such is even more of a problem online. As for the face-to-face skeptical meetings, many reflect the boring features of bible studies from my youth, except there is science in place of scripture and usually beer (both of which I will NEVER complain about). I feel unfulfilled, like with some podcasts. Maybe my experiences are just that ad I do not reflect even a minority of skeptics, but I speak out anyway. While the group gatherings and fellowship with other skeptics is akin to religious believers and church, from a sociological perspective, I think a promotion of "the lone skeptic" might help more become more active in "spreading the faith"... or lack thereof, as it were. Not everyone can serve in such socially-based ways ad it is likely a benefit to have those who are able to go their own way in furthering "the good fight". Standards will always be needed to ensure quality but how they are kept can be done with a lot more heart and a lot less ego by certain individuals. We all are on a never-ending journey to acquire new knowledge ad should never forget it.
I know some of these observations have been touched on in the two essays but I speak them to say my peace. I will continue my own efforts and hope you all will yours. I think these essays are on the right track to breathing new life into the skeptical community. To further this discussion, I will be making then an "open letter", that is, I will also be posting it to a couple of my web-logs. (Just F.Y.I.) Hopefully something worthwhile will come of it all. Until then, thank you all for your time.
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
