Filed under Conferences

Live Blogging TAM2012 Day Four (Final Day–Sunday)

Well here we are, day four, or as they would have said in the world of Logan’s Run, “Last Day.”. If you believe the believers in the “Mayan Apocalypse Prophesy” (or, in my opinion, the dreams, schemes, aspirations, and plans of the FtB/Skepchicks/CFI Axis) this will be the last day of TAM ever.. So SA better enjoy it. I once again got up bright and early to wait in line to get a promo seat. And once again I succeeded.

The breakfast spread, same as every other day at TAM:

20120715-073911.jpg

A typical SA breakfast at TAM2012:

20120715-073803.jpg

On to the Sunday Papers;

Martha Keller. CAM in Veterinary Medicine.

AVMA says that treatment should be supported by the scientific method.

There are almost 100,000 vets in the USA.

Acupuncture is done on dogs, cats, turtles, horses.

There is a gallbladder acupuncture point on a horse, even though horses have no gallbladders (they just took human “meridians” and points and applied them to animals).

Wild animals eat what we would consider meat by-products, making “natural pet food” proponents seen ridiculous in complaining against adding these to pet food.

PETA wants cats to go Vegan, which are “obligate carnivore” so it is not a good idea.

Ivan Alvarado. “The Billy Meier Metal Samples.”

Billy Meier is a Swiss UFO claimant, who sent a metal sample to IBM labs, where one scientist claimed to have found unusual properties that our technology can’t reproduce. Skeptics attacked the credentials of the scientist.
Ivan looked at the data/information.

Scientist claimed to have found an unusually large number of elements from the periodic table, a rare element named Thulium was found suggesting an advanced materials synthesis technology.

They reproduced his EDS spectrum results from one-element ultra-pure nickel. The IBM scientist saw an equipment-based artifact.

Thulium EDS signature from IBM
scientist was missing EDS data spikes, suggesting to him some weird manufacturing process. His graph matches an EDS for Aluminum. By playing with settings, you can get computer to say aluminum is thulium.

Jeff Rosky, on Post-Conviction Polygraphs.

Correctional Quackery, interventions that have no empirical evidence, and proponents are dismissive of people that point out that there is no evidence and that they don’t work.

Interesting, inventor of the polygraph, William Marston, phd, was the creator of Wonder Woman and her magic lasso of truth.

Polygraphed sex offenders report more victims, and wider array of offenses.

No evidence that sex-offender polygraph deters behavior, or reduces recidivism.

Christine Shellska spoke on Assessing Intelligent Design From A Communications Perspective.”. Some interesting content, but her boring monotone and reading a pre-prepared text made it seem more like listening to a seventh grade science fair presentation than anything else. I would suggest that she consider talking without notes (other than PowerPoint–PowerPoint should be a speaker’s only notes) at a Skepticamp or local event to develop public speaking skills.

10:00 am. The Panel On “Complimentary Medicine.”. Steve Novella, Harriet Hall, David Gorski, and Rachel Dunlap.

20120715-100546.jpg

Dr. Dunlap. “Complimentary Medicine that had been shown to work medicine.”

Novella: “Before they came up with marketing terms like “complimentary, alternative, or integrative” medicine used be be called “health fraud.”

An interesting tweet from Elyse Anders: “Sad hearing stories of women leaving #tam2012 early because of how they were treated this year. I guess we can’t have nice things.”. This, I believe, is total and complete bullshit, and is little more than a preliminary attempt by the FtB/Skepchicks/CFI axis to frame the reality of what happened at TAM2012 for their own (in my opinion) nefarious purposes. The only person I have heard leaving early is Amy Roth (aka Surly Amy) who, apparently, considers disagreement to be the same as harassment or mistreatment. But the FtB/Skepchicks/CFI axis will no doubt attempt to frame TAM2012 as an environment that is unfriendly to women, no doubt as a prelude to promoting their own “women-friendly” alternatives. The ploy is so obvious that it is laughable. TAM2012 has been friendly to everyone that did not come here with a FtB/Skepchicks/CFI axis chip on their shoulder.

Great tweet from my favorite satire tweeter, Angry Skeptic Woman:

TAM2012 is responsible for the happiness of EVERY women during the ENTIRE time they are in Vegas, whether actually at a TAM session or not.

Back to the conference, 11:15, George Hrab does his musical intro to Carrie Poppy, Jref’s Communications Director:

20120715-111825.jpg

Carrie talking about her former belief in homeopathy:

20120715-112010.jpg

The topic if Carrie’s talk is using “in-group” language. Meaning the language of the social/political/ideological group that a person normally lives in.

In order to convince some people, you need to show them you are “one of their people” before convincing them of anything. This, she said, is how you reach outside of skeptical circles.

On her podcast they don’t call themselves skeptics, don’t tell people they are wrong. She says it gets good results.

Believers often say: “I don’t get this anywhere else.”

Her plea: Remember that humans are tribal animals, and to outreach to them, you have to seem to be a member of their tribe. Interesting observation from Carrie: imagine as a skeptic taking life advice from Sylvia Brown or Depok Chopra, even if they were correct on a issue.

“Truth without compassion makes you right, but makes you lonely.”

I was really impressed with Carrie’s talk. Very deep and considered.

11:45 Brian Dunning. “Your Brain Sucks.”

Big cheer from the crowd for Brian.

Brian using a hand-held mic to walk the stage:

20120715-114854.jpg

So far, this is an exposition on how bad observation works, how bad people remember things they observed seconds ago.

A lot of this is live demonstration with audience members.

20120715-115159.jpg

The brain stores the idea of what happens, not so much the specific facts.

Brian is using an iPhone or similar device for notes as he wanders around stage. Very discrete. A nice trick.

1:45. Christopher Dicarlo. An interestingly named talk, “how to be a pain the ass.”

Dicarlo, looking surprisingly like Leonard Nimoy, circa 1967:

20120715-135339.jpg

Apparently the Socratic method is a big part of it. And feigning ignorance.

Strangely, this talk had become an exploration of Greek philosophical skepticism.

Dicarlo smugly criticizes bumper stickers he sees in the US saying “God Bless America.”

Funny, I guess he has forgotten the words in his own national anthem:

O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

He really lost me with his smug sense of superiority over the US based on a stupid bumper-sticker.

2:45 panel on “how not to be a paranormal investigator”

20120715-144607.jpg

Moderator Carrie Poppy, James Randi, Ben Radford, Banachek, and Matt Baxter.

Matt: “I am probably the only one up here that has read all of their books and not written my own.”

Matt: “Most common mistake that paranormal investigators make is watching TV.”

Ben: “One of the biggest issue is the lack of research.”

Ben is also astounded by “paranormal Investigators who turn out the lights.”

Randi: The media doesn’t care if what they present is true or not, as long as it sells their sponsor’s product. Be very careful of Greeks bearing gifts, so to say.”

Wow, Matt Baxter just called a certain group of TV “paranormal investigators” are “frauds”. Wow. Gutsy.

3:12. Randi announces that whether million dollar challenge goes on this evening is “iffy”. Uh oh.

3:30. At this time it appears to this reporter that about half to 2/3 of TAM attendees are still here. Pretty impressive for this late on a Sunday afternoon.

Matt Baxter, the man with nerves of steel, contemplating calling a group of famous paranormal investigators “frauds”:

20120715-152624.jpg

Running low on batteries again, so live blogging done for the day. Over and out from Las Vegas . . . for now.

Tagged

Live Blogging Tam2012 Day Three (Saturday)

Day three. Saturday. Once again we started at 8:00 am sharp. There was a pretty nice crowd for 8:00 am after an 11:00 am rock and roll/donut/bacon party.

The crowd at 8:05 am:

20120714-080528.jpg

Ben Radford, one of my longtime heroes in the skeptics movement, drew the short straw to talk at 8:00 about the Mayan ” 2012 end of the world prophesy.” He has stated with a history of major end of the world predictions, starting with the Millerites in the 1840s

Ben: “Some say the world will end in horrible ways, you know disembowelings, Pauly Shore movies, you know.”

Per Ben, the Mayans did not place a great deal of importance on 2012, and often mentioned dates after 2012.

Per Ben, positions of modern Mayans on the 2012 prophesy: “Who gives a shit.”

There is at least one Mayan inscription mentioning 2012, describing the descent of a god. Here if is:

20120714-082610.jpg

Ben: “I predict that there will be widespread stress and panic on Dec 21, 2012. After all, it is four days before Christmas.”

8:30. Sara Mayhew. I am interested in what she has to say, as I have no idea why she is here. She is apparently a “manga” boom artist–manga being the comic-book form of anime.

She seems a little off, honestly. Perhaps not enough sleep last night. She stated out with a manga drawing lesson, drawing Phil Plait and Richard Wiseman (the joke-same drawing)

Still don’t know why she is here, but she really knows how to use PowerPoint. Deep. She may be the most talented person in creating PowerPoint than I have ever seen, perhaps not surprising, as she is a graphic artist.

Ten minutes in to her time, she has said nothing of note.

Sara Mayhew:

20120714-084138.jpg

8:45. Sara Mayhew has talked about living in Northern Ontario. She is a skeptic artist: “it is a little world that I am stuck in between but I love it. It had helped me creatively to think outside the box.”. Yes, she really used that cliche. Boy, is this meandering. I really can’t understand why they invited her to TAM, she really has nothing to contribute. At most she should be on a panel, not wasting the time as a solo act on the main stage. At 8:49 she starts talking about the characters of Twilight and Harry Potter (really). Many phones now being bright out and games being played:

20120714-085253.jpg

Sara is an intelligent, talented, and nice person, but this talk is the first epic fail of TAM. 30 wasted minutes talking about nothing. For the people on the next panel, this is at least a good lead-in, as the audience will be hungry for anything of substance. And she went five minutes late, disregarding several stage cues from MC George Hrab. Ugh.

9:07 am. The Skepticism And The Humanities Panel. Led by Brian Thompson. Members Amy Davis Roth, Miranda Celeste Hale, Robert Blaskiewicz, Eve Siebert, and Hai-Ting Chinn.

Amy is, of course from Skepchicks, and she mentioned this, to a very small (even minuscule) amount of applause.

I have never heard of Eve Siebert, but she seems really interesting. She mentioned creationist interpretations of Beowulf. That seems like an interesting topic. Why the hell didn’t the Jref give us Eve talking about that for 30 minutes at 8:30 instead of 30 minutes about nothing.

Eve made a very interesting point, literary interpretation, like looking at Hamlet can teach critical thinking skills. I had never thought about that, but definitely true, as long as you have a good teacher in high school or university.

Miranda Celeste Hale eloquently talked about how to teach students skepticism and supporting their assertions worn high quality evidence. These skills can be transferred to skepticism.

Hai-Ting Chinn answers a question, flanked by Amy Davis Roth and Miranda Celeste Hale:

20120714-094256.jpg

For a while, the panel seemed to veer off into a buzzaro netherworld where then seemed to urge us to support bad artists producing bad art, if it agreed with us. I guess to allow these artists to develop into better artists. I guess early George Lucas films sucked, so perhaps this is a good point.

The topic if post-modernism comes up. Fringe cultural theorists use scientific terms. Miranda brings up the Sokol affair, one of my favorites. Eve said these post-modernist fringe cultural theorist are like zombies, trying to “eat your brain in the most annoying way.”. Fantastic!

Brian: “Post-modernism is defined as that which cannot be defined”. The “extrinsic meaning is intrinsic.”

So, the panel started off slowly, but got on a roll towards the end, and Miranda Hale was an unexpected treat. She should be a plenary speaker, along with Eve. Eve should maybe be a keynote (I am really interested to hear about creationist interpretations of Beowulf!).

10:02 Jamy Ian Swiss comes on stage.

“Hi, my name’s Jamy. And I’m a skeptic!”. He then picked up a book, saying the definition was within. He opened up the book and flames shot out! “That’s all the magic you get from me.”

Jamy:

20120714-103727.jpg

My notes on what Jamy said: “Atheism is skepticism directed at one particular claim”. Skepticism is now about what to think, but how to think. Not outcomes, just a method. There should be no litmus tests for particular ideas/views to get into the skeptical tent. It is the way of thinking that is important. I don’t have to agree with a skeptic’s conclusion, as long as they use the process to get there.

The world is full of atheists who are not skeptics. He has argued with an atheist about “The Secret.”.

His wife started an atheist parents meetup, and at first meeting someone asked her: “What’s your sign?”

Example of atheist non-skeptic: Bill Maher. “Screw Bill Maher!”. Maher is a “faith based atheist who is not really a skeptic.”

“Skepticism is not atheism is not secular humanism.”

“If atheism comes from a scientific world view, atheism, skepticism, and secular humanism are overlapping magesteria, and have a lot of overlap on a Venn diagram, but not identical.”

Skepticsm is a “thinking took kit” that must be applied to all subjects and claims. Skeptics test claims when nobody else does.

If political ideology is not part of our movement, we can invite leftists, conservatives, libertarians, people of all political backgrounds.

Consumer protection is the most important work of the skeptic movement. The job isn’t done, it will never be done. Skeptics should unapologetically re-affirm this and not abandon it in favor of something “more important.”. This is a critique of “Skepticism 2.0″. I don’t know what Skepticism 2.0 is. “You welcome to come into the tent of the skeptics movement as another kind of activist, but do not come into my Skeptics tent and say you are moving it”.

“Everyone can be fooled. Everyone. . . It’s not because they are stupid. They are human. They are stuck with a human brain and all it’s evolutionary fiobles.”

“Skeptics are often more concerned with being right than explaining their thinking. Help someone not wrong the next time.”

WOW. Jamy was fantastic. FANTASTIC!

11:00. (15 minutes behind schedule). Deirdre Barrett comes out.

“An exaggerated cue can pull an instinct stronger than the real thing. You can creat super-normal stimuli for all instincts.”

“We are raising free range chickens to feed to couch potato people.”. Great line.

11:35 Steve Novella comes out. We are now 20 minutes behind schedule.

Per Dr. N:

A problem with skepticism, is that people often think we are calling them stupid, when in reality we are saying everyone is stupid.”

Phrases to avoid: “I know what I saw.”. “I clearly remember.”. “Why would they lie.”

What you perceive as reality is a constructed fiction. The facts that Skeptics understand this is the largest gulf between skeptics and non-skeptics.

Perception is constructed by the brain, and this construction is filled with flaws and holes.

Your sense of yourself is constricted by your brain and can break down when the brain is injured.

Our brain tells is a story of what it thinks is happening. Our brain subconsciously used biases.

Optical illusions are an analogy to everything your brain does.

Your brain chooses what information to focus on, and disregards the rest.

What you see is altered by what you hear, and what you hear is altered by what you see.

All memories are constructed, and false in some way. We make up details and memories all the time. Your brain fills in gaps. Your brain evolved to make you think reality is real, and not constructed.

A really interesting talk from Steve:

20120714-120016.jpg

Then Pamela Gay came out and gave what was, to be blunt, a boring, self-reverential, and useless waste of time. Nothing learned, nothing really said. It is an inspirational talk that is not inspirational. “I and my friends are wonderful and important, and so can you be” and in the most boring possible way. Then, towards the end, she goes into sexual harassment by “men in power” at astronomy conferences. “If pisses me off that as strong as I am, I can’t name names and expect to have a career tomorrow.”

Then she complains about sexual harassment at her place of employment, where, apparently she grins and bears it instead of reporting it to HR.

Says she has had breasts and butt grabbed by drunk guys in the skeptical conference/events, but, she says NOT TAM.

This has become a long rant on Internet trolling and negativity. This talk will, no doubt get a standing ovation. It doesn’t deserve it, but it will get one.

12:38. Yup. Undeserved standing ovation. We are now about 25 minutes behind schedule.

One nice thing about TAM running late is the almost total lack of time for questions from the audience, which I generally find a waste of time.

Due to a technical glitch, my entries for Susanah Martinez-Conde were lost. Suffice it to say, her talk was fantastic. Absolutely fantastic.

Lunch: JREF had this idea that they would put a little sign on each table with a particular subject or interest. That way people sharing that idea/interest could sit together and talk about it. Again, fantastic idea. Execution both days was an abject failure. Nobody mentioned it yesterday and they were late with the placards, which were only placed on a few tables. Today they mentioned it, but a bunch of people snuck out to lunch early, and as a result all of the tables were full when the guy assigned placard placing duty came into the room. So no placards for the “birds of a feather” idea. Too bad, it was a great idea.

I am running low on batteries again, so live blogging this afternoon may be limited.

4:14 pm. Got a nice fresh charge on the phone, so let’s backtrack a bit

2:00. SGU live taping. Interesting. They showed a fantastic new video they have made a fantastic new video of a skeptical caveman. Jay Novella played a prominent role, and wow, that guy can act. Seriously.

3:00 Sean Carroll. Great.

3:45. Elizabeth Cornwell. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. She discussed issues in social media and blogging. And discussed an interesting type of narcissistic personality online that gets sudden fame, gets boosts of self-esteem by counting comments, especially comments in agreement, and reacts strongly and quickly to any dissent or criticism. Dunno. Reminded me of some people.

4:15 Lawrence Kraus. Each of the compact detectors at the Large Hadron Collider has more steel than the Eiffel Tower.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Kraus: “When we ask why, we really mean how.”

“Science changes the meaning of things, because we learn things.”

“We have a plausible explanation of how it happened without resorting to a supernatural explanation.”

“Before Darwin, life was a miracle. Darwin showed it was possible to show how organisms arose from a single organism. And that is where we are with the universe. And that’s amazing.”

“You are far more insignificant that you can possibly imagine. We are just some cosmic pollution in a universe of dark matter.”

Mr. Randi enjoys Dr. Krauss’ talk:

20120714-165538.jpg

“We know to within 1 perfect of accuracy that the universe is flat. But there is not mass in galaxies. It would mean that nothing weighs something.”

“If you put 70% of the mass and energy of the universe in empty space, the math of a flat, expanding universe works out.”

“If there was nothing, that would be interesting, and unexpected. But you wouldn’t be there to observe it.”

We were in a closed universe so large it looks flat. Wow.

We live in the only kind of universe that could have been made from nothing.

“If there are many universes, we would be manifestly surprised if we lived in one in which we couldn’t live.”

Standing ovation for Dr. Kraus:

20120714-172120.jpg

5:27 pm. Penn and Teller come on stage. It is a discussion with one of their writers.

Penn: “Randi is everything to me”

Teller: “Magic for me did not have a moral component until i met Penn.”

So, it’s a Q and A but not an audience Q and A. Nice.

Penn: “The only people that jugglers can look down on in show-business are ventriloquists and hypnotists.”. Love it.

Teller answers a question:

20120714-174252.jpg

Penn: “I have been attacked more for not being a liberal than being an atheist.”

This Q and A has been great, much more thoughtful than audience questions. Loving it! And then they stated with audience questions, and I an out of there.

Over and out from day three.

Tagged

Live Blogging TAM2012 Day Two (Friday)

7:20 am Anybody who read my guide to TAM will have read my advice to get the Grand Ballroom early to get a good seat. So here I am at 7:20 am and I am about number 50. Here’s the line

20120713-072728.jpg

In a nice touch, there were breakfast stations inside and outside the grand ballroom. Breakfast consists of nice cuts of fruit, some small tasteless croissants, yoghurt, and cereal. And coffee. And after last night I need a lot of coffee. SGU live show scheduled for 8:00.

8:00 sharp. The SGU live broadcast. Only mention of Rebecca not being here is Steve Novella saying: “As you can see, Rebecca will not be joining us.”. Richard Saunders is sitting in as a “guest rogue.”

Interesting. The SGU went on a behind the scenes tour of Pixar. From the photographs, it does not appear that Rebecca went along with them. One wonders if there is any significance to that

Here George Hrab introduces the SGU:

.

20120713-080833.jpg

Interesting observation from Richard Saunders: Why is it that whenever they arrest someone, they put the age in the media story about it.

8:40. The SGU show has been going on for 40 minutes now. Currently Bob Novella is discussing the Higgs Boson and where the discovery will lead. It is an interesting topic, but also falls into a general trend I have seen from the SGU over the past few years where they have become more of a science news show than their original premise. Mission creep over the years.

8:44. Jay Novella pimps a sex manual app, including “positions.”. Kind if strange. Apparently the app features Jay’s voice telling the user to switch “positions” in various characters and accents. Humorous. “I don’t know how many of you need help with sex, but this can help you.”. A very strange three minute interlude.

Then the SGU went into some very racy sex myths. On the question of whether men can have multiple orgasms, Richard Saunders made a horrible pun: “I couldn’t hear you, come again?”

Other topics include whether semen is low carb, average penis size, how often men think of sex, whether having sex in water will kill sperm. The commentary on whether semen is low carb and penis size may have gone a little too far for some people. I wonder what Becky’s reaction would have been?

9:00 George Hrab seems to be working with a team of tech people to get some issue worked out. I think we had the same issue made year. Wtf? Why can’t they tech this out in advance for George.

Then George started out with an amazingly funny video, the premise of which was he thought that Tam 2012 was going to be called TAMX.

He then came out with a great parody of REM, and sang “Its not the end of the world as we know it.”. Fantastic!

Randi came out at about 9:20 to a standing ovation.

20120713-092913.jpg

Randi came discussed a new movie coming out of Hollywood featuring Robert DeNiro and Segorney Weaver where they have allegedly lifted a bunch of material from Randi and the JREF’s work without attribution.

The crowd seems pretty big–almost as big as last year.

20120713-093849.jpg

9:30 Michael Shermer came out and gave a tour de force on the moral arc of science. Too many knowledge bombs going off too fast for me to keep up!

10:00 Eugenie Scott begins speaking about the future of creationism.

Eugenie Scott:

20120713-100427.jpg

According to Eugenie, things have gotten better in Texas–that they have gotten about 90% of what they want. Standards there are good, but not perfect. 90% is pretty good by my book. Textbooks reflecting these 90% standards will be out in 2013. I wonder though, for how much longer Texas will have power over national textbook purchasing–when will the age of electronic textbooks that can easily be customized for each state be upon us?

Per Eugenie, there are increasingly complaints made to NCSE about teaching creationism at community colleges in the USA. That’s surprising on one hand, but I have a pretty low opinion those institutions anyway, so maybe not so surprising.

10:45. Start of an hour-long panel on “Skepticism about the future” with Steve Novella, Steve Macknik, Michael Shermer, and Michael Vassar. Moderated by Julia Galef. I guess as a skeptic I am supposed to know who Julia Galef is, but I don’t. She went on way took way too long to talk about herself in the intro. Really, Julia, I don’t think anyone in the TAM audience really cares that you just moved to Berkeley. Perhaps she was just killing time, but there is killing time and there is “boring the audience to death.” Her “moderation” is more of a really boring and stilted interview style of prepared questions. It really seems that she is doing about 50% of the talking.

The panel:

20120713-110526.jpg

Shermer: “I went on a low calorie diet once. It started at breakfast and ended at dinner. You are always hungry. If you get six more months, is it worth it?”. SA’s thoughts exactly.

11:05 talk veers to nematode neurons and extrapolating to extrapolating to human neurons. Really interesting, and Julia butted out for a few minutes and then let it go, then I interrupted with a one minute long question. When Julia asks her questions the audience seems to loose interest and stare at their hands or the table, and then loom up when a panelist talks. These panelists are really interesting. We would be much better off with a different moderator.

11:50 On to Jennifer Michael Hecht. BTW Geoege Hrab is doing brilliant little musical intros for each speaker (and panelists!). It is a great innovation. Bravo George.

Technical glitches rearing their heads once again. For some reason they couldn’t get a computer to show’s Jennifer’s PowerPoint. She went old school with no PowerPoint.

Technical problems:

20120713-115517.jpg

Jennifer taking–old school without a PowerPoint

20120713-115628.jpg

Fascinating info from Jennifer: Seances used to be attended to lots of scientists, including people like Marie Curie and William James. Thoma Edison was a big skeptic. “I cannot see the use of a future life. Proof, proof is what I am after.”

Jennifer: “The meat wrote Paradise lost, the meat wrote the sympathies, the meat made the iPad.”

Jennifer: “we take the escalator to the stairmaster”

Jennifer: “Secular community has a live and let die attitude toward despair suicide. If you want your niece to survive through the dark times, you have to.”

Jennifer Michael Hecht–a really interesting and profound talk. Even with no PowerPoint.

12:15 Karen Stollznow stated talking about linguistics and predictions–language related methods of predicting the future.

Karen’s talk is the first “hard skeptical” topic. Talking about woo woo use of language. Really the ideal talk for a TAM, and Karen is a very articulate investigator and champion of rationality.

Karen:

20120713-122542.jpg

2:15. Jamy Ian Swiss and James (The Amazing) Randi come into the stage for their “annual conversation”. This year they are going to talk about Uri Geller. Per Ransi, Geller has five tricks. He described his first time seeing Geller do his spoon bending trick, at which Geller demanded that no magicians be present. Jamy indicates that Geller has been publicly debunked numerous time, to little or no effect. Then they played the old bit on Johnnie Carson where they put Geller through a test designed by Randi. Per Randi, Geller would call him and hang up prior to major TV appearances to make sure Randi was at home in New Jersey and not at the studio. Not even the Carson appearance had much of an impact.

Randi: “Geller’s a charming guy. A snake is charming too.”

I can never get enough of this Geller stuff.

Jamy: “In Israel, magicians are born with a bent spoon in their mouthes.”

3:05. The Future of Skepticism Panel starts. Jamy Swiss, Tim Farley, Reed Esau, and Barbara Dresher. DJ Grothe moderating.

Reed Esau and his movie star good looks:

20120713-151348.jpg

Per DJ, this year there people from 21 countries and 46 US states are at TAM2012. I wonder what are the four states missing?

Per Esau, the goal of the Skepticamp events is not outreach, it is knowledge sharing and making us better skeptics. It is for skeptics, not to interact with out competitors. Questions from the audience is a form of collaborative quality control. Per Barbara Dresher, this is “how science works.”

Reed: “Skepticamp is peer-based education.”

Swiss: “The need for expertise should not be a discouragement for local skepticism.”

Swiss: “For years Randi had the support of CSICOP [now CFI/CSI]. Until he didn’t.”. Blunt, true, and forceful. One of the lingering reasons I still despise that group.

Reed: “I would point to Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit”. If we stick with that, that defines as a movement apart from humanism and atheism.”. Well said, sir. Well said.

Predictions for five years off:

Jamy–I haven’t a clue. But I do think the Simon Singh case and bomb detector case are optimistic indicators of the success we can look for.”.

Tim: “Everyone of you can make a difference. The future is figuring out how to better use Internet tools. Everybody helping out.

Reed: “we just did our 50th Skepticamp. By July 2017, I see 200 Skepticamps in 10 languages.”

Barbara: “Climate change deniers will cause a ruckus at TAM15, to be held at the South Point Casino and Seaport.”

This may be the best panel I have ever seen at a TAM, or at any other kind of conference. This one panel was worth the price of admission all on its own.

4:35 Bruce Hood begins. Topic “The Self-Illusion–how your brain creates you.”

Bruce: “Your brain doesn’t have a direct connection to reality.”

Bruce: “It is very difficult to discuss thought experiments with six-year olds.”. Word.

5:08 p.m. George introduces Friday keynote speaker Carol Tarvis. He leads us all in a stretch.

Carol: “I have spent my entire life lobbing grenades at psychobabble.”

“The love of expressing rage in our society is so strong that after I debunked it, it got re-bunked, an I then had to re-de-bunk it.”

“I don’t go anywhere anymore without my brain.”

Carol implied a value judgment that science not be carried out for profit, pointing to Jonas Salk, who did not patent the polio vaccine, but (from me) what about Edison, Bell, Westinghouse, the Wright Brothers, Tesla, Marconi, etc all of whom were driven by desire for profit.

Follows a bunch of zingers coming too fast to catch. At any rate, at 5:36 local I am running out of juice. Signing off for the day.

Tagged

Live Blogging TAM Day One

9:00 a.m. Today is workshop day. I decided to attend the workshop on skepticism in Africa.

James Randi made a surprise appearance to introduce the speakers:

20120712-090759.jpg

Leo Igwe from the Nigerian Skeptics is telling us about efforts “shine the light” in the activities of witch-hunters in his home country. Slide from a church bulletin “Operation kill the Witches.” His remarks were inspirational. Frankly the work he does is risky and much more important for the people if his country than almost anything skeptics can do here. He may be the most impressive skeptic speaker I have ever seen. He should be a keynote speaker. Among other things he mentioned:

In Africa, asking did proof is often taken as western and “white.”

Recently police arrested a goat in Nigeria for robbery as a shape shifter.

Two women last year were arrested for bewitching women. Leo’s group tried to shine the light on that.

Women in Burkino Faso, witches called “soul eaters” are displaced. They have tried to help them.

Albinos are persecuted because people think their bodies have magical properties to give users of the substances “good fortune.”

A large number of women in Malawi were arrested for witchcraft. Leo’s group helped local activists in Malawi to get many women accused of witchcraft out of jail.

A “hunchback” woman murdered because some believe their body parts are magic. She left behind three young children–they are trying to raise money for they education.

African media is not critical of paranormal claims–much less.

Here’s a photo of Leo and the other speakers:

20120712-092505.jpg

9:30–it was just mentioned that Leo was arrested last year in Nigeria on false charges. International pressure from skeptics groups helped get him released.

9:38 a.m. Leo is often accused of having an atheist agenda to convert Nigeria to atheism. His agenda is just to help people. He emphasizes the human benefit of skepticism to children and persecuted people. He “makes humanity the emphasis when it comes to my skeptical activism.”

9:50 a.m. In Cameroon and the Central African Republic, judges bring in “witch-doctors” to help them reach their decisions an convict people, even of things like witchcraft, which is illegal in those countries.

10:25 am. My guestimate for this workshop audience, about 2.5 men for each woman.

10:36 am. After attending this workshop, my opinion is that if you are going to give any money to skeptical groups/organizations, it should be to groups like Leo’s in Africa. CFI doesn’t have any need when compared to people like Leo. Thank you Leo. Thank you Jref for bringing Leo here. This was a very inspiring way to start the day. Please google Leo Igwe or contact him at humanistleo@hotmail.com to donate to a worthy cause.

11:05. In the workshop on “Promoting Skepticism on a Local Level” by Brian Thompson of the Jref. Sparsely attended because the “Ask Dr. Google”
Workshop has star power and is a big draw.

Brian Thompson leading the workshop:

20120712-111000.jpg

The relatively empty room:

20120712-111545.jpg

11:20 am. Brian Thompson just compared skeptics not challenging their friends on things like chiropractic to Louisiana Giv. Bobby Jindal writing (perhaps falsely) about performing an exorcism and being a good Catholic. I really didn’t follow that logic and it didn’t make the slightest bit of sense to me.

11:30 apart from Brian’s one bizarre comment, this has been a very lively and useful workshop.

11:34. Brian brought up an interesting alternative to skeptics in the pub: skeptics in the park. Seems kind of weather dependent and would only be available in most places during part of the year.

12:05. Brian Thompson does not like the term “skeptics movement”. Think of it more like a public service, like firefighters, putting out fires when they arise. Don’t think in broad terms and shoot for total victory, which we won’t ever achieve, just do what we can on an ongoing basis. This way we will avoid getting dejected by failure to change society totally, and concentrate on dealing with issues as they arise. A very wise and profound observation by Mr. Thompson.

12:10 decided to head over to the Dr. Google workshop. It has about 20 times more people as the local organIzing workshop–but this one has the star power it Drs. Steve Novella, Rachel Dunlap, and David Gorski.

20120712-123408.jpg

12:34 Wandered into the main ballroom where Penn is recording his weekly Sunday School. This year the Jref decided to sell reserved seating. Finally got a chance to look at it. It will apparently be the first six rows of the entire middle section. About 70-80 seats. Here’s a pic:

20120712-124730.jpg

One other thing of note–they have brought back the concept of desks/tables in the first few rows, which I think we last saw at TAM7 or 8.

2:00 pm workshop on astronomy for skeptics by James McGaha.

Good point. We often hear about “trained observers” looking in the evening sky (or daytime sky for that matter), who are these trained observers? Who trains them? What training do they receive? Police and pilots make some of the worst observers of objects in the evening sky. Another good point–when you see a moving object in the sky, you really have very little data and grounds for comparison.

The room is pretty full.

20120712-142533.jpg

2:25. McGaha brought out a monopod and used it with a tool that measures angles. A monopod! At TAM?

3:00 Moved over to the Tim Farley and Derek Calanduno on online activism. About half as many people here as for the astronomy workshop. Tom Farley is talking.

Point: over 700 plus skeptical blogs with over 250 posts per day.

Slightly under 100 skeptics podcasts (and this does not include atheist podcasts). Wow. In 10 languages. Wow!

At least 3,800 podcast episodes.

At least 9,600 skeptical videos on YouTube.

Here is what Tim Looks like this afternoon:

20120712-150001.jpg

3:15. Been checking twitter. Seems like a bunch of bitter people affiliated with the FtB/Skepchicks axis have been sitting on the #tam2012 hashtag. What bitter, sad, pathetic people.

3:20. Derek Calanduno of Skepticality just got done dropping knowledge bombs about getting noticed online. Really good advice for those skeptical podcasters out there.

3:41 Shane Greenup of RBUTR makes a surprise appearance about his new service. All the way from Australia. A lot of Aussies here. RBUTR is a web annotation service/browser plugin that will put a link to a rebuttal(s) of an article. Available only for Chrome currently. Crowdsourced info, and requested rebuttals. What an amazing idea.

4:00-5:45 went to the paranormal investigators panel, but my phone ran out of juice. And I don’t remember my observations.

8:00. An hour into the opening reception. George Hrab introduced James Randi, who is currently giving a welcoming speech. “I love everybody”

20120712-200232.jpg

Anyway, that ends live blogging for the day. More tomorrow.

TAM2012 Preliminary Observations

I have now officially arrived in Las Vegas for The Amazing Meeting 2012.

Here are some preliminary observations:

(1) I really like the program cover:

20120711-162303.jpg

(2). Fascinatingly, I have looked through the program and the schedule insert, and I see no mention of any anti-harassment policy, behavior policy, or speech code anywhere. Perhaps they read my previous blog post where my lawyer commenter explained what a bad idea such a policy is.

(3). Even though she has repeatedly trashed the Jref and it’s president, DJ Grothe, the Jref has still thanked Rebecca Watson in the program. Very impressive and classy on the part of the Jref.

20120711-162850.jpg

And before you think that this is due to the booklet going to the printer prior to Rebecca’s announced boycott of TAM, think again. She is not listed in the speaker area, although the rest of the SGU cast is. Again, thanking Rebecca for what she has done and displaying class and an absence of malice. I can’t imagine that Becky would give DJ the same courtesy.

(3). Everyone I have met seems to be in a really good mood, and the veil of negativity that FtB, the Skepchicks, Becky, PZ Myers, Greg Laden and the rest of the über-PC peanut gallery would want to impose on us is absent.

Onward and upward!

Tagged

Mr. X not coming to TAM

This is a Skeptical Abyss news update. Breaking news.

The SA newsroom has just learned that Mr. X has pulled out of attending TAM2012. Our anonymous tipster has indicated that Mr. X feels that, due to the publicity he has received lately, he would not feel welcome at TAM and fears he would be harassed.

We are seeking comment from Mr. X.

Update. We received the following comment from Mr. X:

The recent events certainly influenced that decision. I just don’t want to risk it being an unpleasant affair or anything because of them. The other thing is TAM is expensive, but normally it’s worth it to me spending the money to go. This year the speaker lineup is not very impressive, so I hardly see much point in bothering to pay or to risk it.

Tagged ,

Sexism At Skeptics Conferences–Part One. The Problem.

With only six or so weeks to go until the big kahuna of skeptics conferences in the USA, The Amaz!ing Meeting, the issue of sexual harassment at is rearing its ugly head again.

For those of you who do not  follow the skepticsphere and are thus blissfully unaware of the controversy, the issue arose  pre-TAM last year in the guise of the “elevatorgate” crisis.  Elevatorgate came to the fore after B-list celebrity skeptic Rebecca Watson made an off-hand reference in a public speech advising men not to emulate the behavior of a cad who propositioned her in a hotel elevator in the early hours of the morning. (FWIW, calling Rebecca B-list is not supposed to be an insult, I am just trying to place her on the skeptical map, a step below A-Listers such as James Randi and Michael Shermer).  Rebecca made what in retrospect was an off-hand and innocent comment.  The skeptical internet seemed to explode with acrimony, divided, it seemed between the feminists on one side and anti-feminists on the other.  Those of us falling into neither camp (self-included) watched on in horror as the skeptics movement looked like a house divided.

Recently, following CFI’s Women In Secularism conference, a number of  skeptic/freethinker bloggers have opined on the issue, including: JT Eberhard, Stephanie Zvan (one), Stephanie Zvan (two), Skatje Myers, Greta Christina (one), Greta Christina (two), and Greta Christina (three).

The general gist of the commentary is: (1) sexual harassment by men against women is an problem at skeptics conferences; (2) some of this harassment is carried out by the speakers/celebrities at the conferences; (3) the sexual harassment can be harmful, not to mention demeaning and hurtful; and (4) something needs to be done about it. In comments to the blogs, and on Facebook and other places, reactions have ranged from “right on sister!” to “give me a break, it’s not a problem, and we are here to discuss skeptical issues, not militant feminism.”

As a non-feminist, and (hopefully!) non-harasser, I would like to give my take.

First off, it is a problem.  For the women on the receiving end, it can be a big problem.  I will try to look at this through a lens completely different from those who see “male privilege” everywhere or believe that every slight is an example of a society designed to allow men to oppress women.  I am not talking here about an offhand joke or comment  that may offend someone.   I am not talking about flirting.  I am talking about behavior that is either threatening, or is repeated and unwelcome.  Many skeptic men react to the suggestion that sexual harassment exists at events like TAM by feeling insulted.   They have never witnessed sexual harassment at a skeptic event.  They feel insulted because they believe that they themselves are being accused of sexism, or inappropriate behavior.  They also feel that the men who go to events like TAM are like them: educated, sensitive, and intelligent.  They know how to act around women, they know appropriate boundaries, and therefore so must all other men in their position.  If only it were so.  It is an unfortunate fact that skeptic events like TAM are almost custom made environments for sexual harassment.

As a Human Resources professional, I know that sexual harassment is a serious problem in the workplace.  It happens in the workplace much more often than people think.  It is d0ne by educated men, intelligent men, family men, married man, and men who not only should know better, but do know better.   In my experience, it is a result of three factors: (1) Personality; (2) Proximity, and (3) Opportunity.

The Personality part has to do with the personality of the men who commit sexual harassment.  They are a small percentage of men.  In my experience, you can take any random group of 100 men–random by age, education level, intelligence, economic/social background, national origin, etc–and among those 100 men will a handful, somewhere between two and five, who are inclined to engage in serious sexual harassment.  I am convinced that these men have a personality disorder.  Sometimes the personality disorder is obvious, and they get a reputation for being creepy.  More often the personality disorder is only apparent with the other two factors come into play.  When the sexually harassing behavior of these men is revealed, most people that know them are shocked that they have done it.  If we assume that there are 1,000 males at an event like TAM, then by my reckoning you have something like 20 to 50 men  you have to worry about.

The Proximity part is pretty obvious.  Sexual harassment generally happens when the perpetrator and the victim are in close quarters and are exposed to each other on a prolonged basis.  Proximity also amplifies the impact that the harassing behavior has on the victim.  The victim knows that they will have to see the perpetrator again.  They know that the behavior is likely to be repeated.  They often know and like the perpetrator, and have difficulty coming to grips emotionally with the fact that a respected co-worker or colleague acted in a horrible way.  Also, proximity allows the perpetrators to get to know their victims and focus on them.  Most sexual harassers do not harass every women they come in contact with.  Some may become fixated on a particular woman, and that usually takes repeated contact to develop.  Some may target any woman that they feel is vulnerable and unlikely to report the behavior, and that takes a little time to learn.  At a skeptics event like TAM, where we repeatedly see each other in the conference venue, in the hallways, in the bar, at meals, in elevators, and at parties, proximity is present.

Then we get to opportunity.  There are many social settings that are not amenable to sexually harassing behavior because there are too many people within earshot.  Sexual harassers almost always know that what they are doing is wrong, and they don’t want witnesses.  So they wait until they are in one-on-one situations, which abound in the workplace, and at events like TAM.  This one-on-one situation can happen in a crowd, it can happen in a bar–it can happen any time where other people are not paying attention to what the sexual harasser is doing.

So, at a skeptics event like TAM we have all the classic ingredients to make it an ideal place for sexual harassers to victimize women, but we have more than that.  Unlike the workplace or a school, an event like TAM lacks the moderating influences that act discourage sexually harassing behavior.  If you sexually harass women at the workplace you can get fired, and if you do so at school you can get expelled.  Men know this, and it discourages many of them from engaging in sexually harassing behavior.  This moderating influence is present at almost every other conference we experience.  Most conferences are work-related.  You are literally on the job.  You are surrounded by your professional colleagues, and you can suffer the same consequences for misbehavior as you would at the workplace.  The moderating factors present at work and school are almost completely nonexistent at an event like TAM, unless someone does something so bad that they get arrested.  The most that can happen to a sexual harasser is that they get expelled from the conference, which is a minor inconvenience compared to the consequences at other venues.  This lack of consequences is amplified by other factors, like the presence of alcohol and the feeling of euphoria many feel when being away from the stresses and reality of work and home life.

I would thus argue that a skeptic event like TAM is a custom-made environment for sexual harassment to occur.  For women who experience it, it can be a extremely traumatic.  It can certainly make them feel unwelcome and threatened.  The next question, then, is what to do about it.  That will be addressed in my next post.