“What followed then was what invariably follows in the wake of every tortured consciousness.”

–Theodore Dreiser, An American Tragedy

I take no joy in writing this.  In fact, I thought long and hard about whether I should.  Whether I should respect the privacy of the individual.  Whether the wider community has a right to know.  In the end, though, it is about a public figure in the skeptical community, and not just any public figure.   It is, in fact, about a luminary.  A shining light.  A beacon that has brought many of us out from the swamps of superstition into the light of rationality and reason.  The man of whom I write is all of that (and I say this without so much of a whiff of irony), and much more.  He started one of the most popular skeptical podcasts out there, a podcast so influential that it has literally changed lives.  He was instrumental in starting an important skeptical blog.  He has even produced a couple of skeptically themed TV pilots.  And yet, he has fallen.  And because he has put himself out there as a public figure, the public should know about that fall.

I speak of Brian Dunning.    Yes, that Brian Dunning, creator of the Skeptoid  podcast, winner of the best science podcast in the Stitcher awards for 2012.  I have listened to every episode of Skeptoid, and it has made a profound impact on my life.  I like, and respect, Brian Dunning, as many of us do.  And yesterday, April 15, 2013, Brian Dunning walked into a federal courtroom in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) and pled guilty to wire fraud, in violation of Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  Yes, wire fraud.  This is, without any doubt, a horrible tragedy for Brian and his family, and for the skeptical community at large.  One of our leaders has shown that he is not the man that many of us hoped that he would be.

This case has been pending for a long time.  Brian was indicted on June 24, 2010.  The docket history available on pacer.gov (publicly available, but you need to sign up for a password and give them a credit card) shows 60 separate docket entries.  There were trial dates, and continuances, and stipulations, and motions, and responses, and much more.  All leading invariably to where we are now, because once the United States Attorney indicts you, you are pretty much done.  The US Attorney, unlike state prosecutors, gets to pick and choose their cases, and they only indict people that they are sure of convicting.  Recently Brian, his lawyers, and the US Attorney worked out a plea agreement, the exact details of which are not publicly available (when I tried to retrieve a copy of the plea agreement from Pacer, I was denied access, although I can pretty much get access to any other document associated with the case).  Even though the plea agreement is not publicly available, other documents are.

On April 15, 2013, two new documents appeared in a Pacer search for Brian’s case (CASE #: 5:10-cr-00494-EJD-1), a superseding information and an arraignment document (click on the links to view the original documents in .pdf format).  The term “information” is a legal term for a charging document that does not have to go through a grand jury.  The superseding information outlines the factual allegations against Brian.

Here is the arraignment document, which shows that Brian pled guilty yesterday.  Click on the image to make it readable.

As you can see, Brian appeared in court and pled guilty to count one.  What does that mean, though?  For that, we need to review the superseding information in detail (all the facts described below come directly from the publicly available  information on file in the District Court).

According to the information, the wire fraud involved eBay’s affiliate program.   Ebay developed an affiliate program, which was a means by which eBay worked with third-party marketers to drive internet traffic towards eBay.

I will let the information speak for itself.

Background:

3.  Under eBay’s Affiliate Program, it was intended that a third-party affiliate would send visitors to eBay.com from a website associated with an affiliate, and would do so (at least in theory) by suggesting (in some way) that the visitor “click” on the “link” to eBay.com located on the affiliate’s website.  If, within specified time periods, such visitors to eBay.com became new active users, won auctions, or made Buy-it-Now purchases on eBay.com, the affiliate received compensation from eBay.  A “new active user” was defined to include a user who both set up a new eBay.com account and then placed a bid (whether it was a winning bid or not).  For purposes of this Superseding Information, the actions of becoming a new active user, winning an auction, or making a purchase are referred to collectively as “revenue actions.”

4.  The affiliate program defined the rates and amounts of compensation that eBay paid to an affiliate   These rates and amounts of compensation were based on the monthly totals of revenue actions attributable to that affiliate.  For instance, if 1 to 49 of the individuals  the affiliate referred to eBay became new active users within 30 days, eBay paid the affiliate $25.00 per new user.  As another example, if the individuals the affiliate referred to eBay won auctions for items totaling $99.99 in value within seven days, eBay paid the affiliate 50% of the revenue earned by eBay on those transactions.

The Legal Entities.  

The information describes the legal entities and the amount of money involved:

6.  The defendant Brian Dunning (“Dunning”) was an individual who resided in the Central District of California.  Kessler’s Flying Circus (“KFC”) was a partnership that was owned, in part, by Dunning.  Dunning was the sole owner of the company Thunderwood Holdings, Inc., and also did business as BrianDunning.com.  Thunderwood Holdings, together with the company Dunning Enterprise, Inc., did business as KFC.  The non-person entities are referred to collectively as “KFC.”

7.  KFC was a member of the Affiliate Program.  In 2006, KFC received approximately $2,000,000 in compensation from the eBay Affiliate Program in the United States.  Between January and June 2007, KFC earned approximately $3,300,000 in compensation from the eBay Affiliate Program in the United States.  As of approximately June 2007, KFC was the number-two producing account in the Affiliate Program. . . .

 

The Technology Behind The Scheme

8.  eBay used an automated tracking process in an effort to ensure that affiliates received appropriate compensation.  This tracking process utilized “cookies.”

10.  In the eBay Affiliate Program, when a visitor was referred to eBay.com from an affiliate website, eBay dropped a “cookie” on that user’s computer.  This cookie contained information that was used to identify the Affiliate Program member that had directed that particular user to eBay.com.  This information, which included  ”publisher ID,” referring to the affiliate, and/or a “campaign ID,”  referring to a particular program operated by the affilate, is collectively referred to as the “Affiliate ID.”

11.  If and when that user later engaged in revenue action on eBay.com, the Affiliate ID would be transmitted by the user’s computer to eBay.  An automated tracking process performed the analysis to determine whether the revenue action had occurred within the specified time frames.

How the Scheme Worked–Cookie Stuffing.

12.  If a cookie from an affiliate was present on the user’s computer at the time of the revenue action, the affiliate identified by that cookie was credited with the revenue action.  If there was not qualifying cookie on the user’s computer at the time of the revenue action, than no affiliate was credited.

18.  [T]he defendant disseminated on a large number of web pages computer code that, when those web pages were viewed by a computer user, were designed to cause that user’s computer make a request to eBay’s home page merely for the purpose of prompting eBay’s servers to serve up a cookie, which would then be “stuffed” onto the user’s computer.  These cookies contained information that identified an Affiliate ID of KFC.  In such situations, the human user never actually clicked on an eBay advertisement or link on Dunning’s affiliate websites.

19.  [I]n such situations, the computer code prevented eBay’s home page from actually “loading” on the user’s computer screen.  Accordingly, the human user never actually viewed eBay’s home page when an eBay cookie identifying KFC was stuffed onto the user’s computer.  Indeed, the human user never knew that his or her computer had made the request to the website (i.e. eBay.com) that had served up the cookie.   

20.  [T]he defendant provided free applications at two of his websites that users could download and use on their own websites: “ProfileMaps.info,” which showed the physical location of visitor to a MySpace profile, and “WhoLinked.com,” which showed who was linking to a website or blog.  Any visitor to these websites could download either of these applications.  Both applications included code that operated as follows:  when a user visited a website that had installed Profilemaps or Wholinked applications, the code would cause the user unknowingly to receive an eBay and/or CJ cookie with KFC’s Affiliate ID without the user having clicked on an eBay ad or link, without the user knowing that his or her browser had been redirected to the eBay and/or CJ affiliate tracking server and without the user seeing any content of an eBay site.  As a result, KFC would be paid if that user subsequently conducted an eBay revenue action within a certain time frame.

How the money was actually made:

21.  [T]he defendant had the expectation and intention that many of the users whose computers had cookies stuffed on them would thereafter visit eBay and engage in revenue actions.  If these revenue actions were within the time periods specified in the Affiliate Program, KFC would receive compensation from eBay with respect to these events.  The defendant had the expectation and intention that these visits to eBay.com would be of each user’s own accord, and would be separate and apart from any actions taken by the defendant to “drive” those users to eBay.com.

So, according to the superseding information, the wire fraud involved causing cookies to be installed on internet users’ computers without their knowledge.  If, by chance, those users later visited eBay and bought something, then an entity owned by Brian (at least in part) would be treated by eBay as if the entity’s website had driven the customer to eBay by means of a direct referral.  The entity owned (at least in part) by Brian would then get a commission from eBay, as if the entity’s website had actually been responsible for driving the user to eBay.  In reality, the entity’s website would not have driven the customer to eBay, and thus eBay was defrauded.  Thus, wire fraud.

The superseding information charged Brian with wire fraud, occurring between May 2006 and June 2007, and on April 15, 2013, Brian pled guilty to that charge.

Possible sentence and next step in the litigation

It is hard to estimate the actual sentence that Brian is facing, as the terms of the plea agreement are not accessible  on Pacer.gov.  The maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1343 is up to 20 years in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.  Federal Judges, though, use sentencing guidelines to guide their decisions in imposing sentences.  I used the publicly available sentencing guideline calculator in order to figure out what Brian is looking at.  Before I reveal the results, I want to give a few disclaimers: (1) The Plea Agreement may make my calculations incorrect, because the US Attorney may have agreed to a downward departure that I do not know about, because the plea agreement is not publicly available; (2) The Plea Agreement may contain a stipulation that the amount of theft attributable to Brian is less than that stated in the superseding information; (3) I could be mistaken in my factual understanding, and thus inputted information incorrectly into the sentencing calculator.  Additionally, I believe that Brian will be statutorily eligible for a sentence to probation, but I do not see that as a reasonable possibility considering the amount of loss, but you never know.  Maybe Brian has a  really good lawyer and will get probation.

Subject to these caveats, the sentencing calculator indicated that Brian is facing a sentence of 70 to 87 months in prison, or between 5.8 years and 7.25 years.  I believe that he would be eligible for early release after serving 85% of his sentence, with time off for good behavior.

If the US Attorney were to do something like stipulate in the plea agreement that the total loss was $1,000,000, the sentencing range would change to 46-57 months.  Again, perhaps there are stipulated downward departures that could reduce it even more.

Additionally, the arraignment document says that there is an evidentiary hearing regarding loss on August 8, 2013.  Perhaps Brian’s lawyer will attempt to show that the losses to eBay were actually much less than my low-ball assumption of $1,000,000 (it would be nice to have access to the plea agreement, which might provide illumination on this point, but I do  not).  If he could get the loss down to, say $100,000, the sentencing guidelines might go as low as 24-30 months in prison.

Whatever the plea agreement says, and whatever happens at this hearing on August 8, I think it is fair to say that Brian is looking at spending a significant amount of time in a very bad place.

When someone does a podcast like Skeptoid, and they speak into our earbuds once a week, we start to think of them as a friend, even though we do no know them.  I am sure that a good many of us feel that way about Brian.  Many of us have looked up to him, and considered him a beacon of reason.  And yet, here we are.  A hero has fallen.

In other words, if certain people did not like anonymous speech, they get a choice to de-anonymize it or get it taken down.  Since anonymous speech is generally protected under US constitutional law , I would bet my Ferrari F12 Berlinetta that the bill would not survive a constitutional challenge, and even it did somehow survive constitutional challenge, it could only be applied against websites based in Illinois.  Still, it is a troubling idea.  Here is the text of the bill:
 

Here, as they say in Hollywood, is the money shot:  “A web site administrator upon request shall remove any comments posted on his or her web site by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate.”

Here is how it would work.  I am reading (for some reason) Freethought Blogs, and I do not like a comment to a post made  by some troll named, oh I don’t know, “RadFemFreeThinker”.  I decide that I would like to know who RadFemFreeThinker is, so I send an email over to FtB.  They then send an email to RadFemFreeThinker, asking for the commenter’s name, address, and IP address information.  Either RadFemFreeThinker complies, and her or his name is then appended to the comment, or the comment is taken down.  Either way, I (who after all do not like what RadFemFreeThinker has to say) either get their identity (in which case, were I a nefarious sort of man/woman/other, I could engage in an IRL campaign of harassment and intimidation), or I get the content taken down.  Either way, I win.  The opportunities for mischief are both numerous and obvious.

It seems to me that this bill is really aimed at anonymous commenters and whistle-blowers posting comments on Illinois newspaper and TV station websites.   Such comments often harshly criticize the very politicians who would propose and vote upon such a bill, and I can imagine that politicians such as Mr. Silverstein are none too happy when such comments are made.  So, politicians like Mr. Silverstein want to do what they can to chill anonymous speech that is critical of them.  That’s the intent, it seems to me, but in reality it would go far, far beyond that.  If you don’t like what Mr. X said on a comment on this website (the servers and administrators of which are blissfully located outside the borders of the Great State of Illinois), either get Mr. X to give up his name, or deprive everyone else from getting to read what Mr. X has to say.

Disgusting.  Unconstitutional. Despicable.

“I been a long time leaving but I’m going to be a long time gone”

–Willie Nelson

I have been gone from blogging since July, and I had planned on being gone forever (at least on this blog). Today I decided to change that, and, well . . . I am back. I can’t say for how long, and I can’t say why I was gone for such a long while. IRL can be a real bitch sometimes.

I have not logged into the SA admin page since July, and today when I got back, what did I see but 60,626 comments pending moderation! I bet that all but about 10 are spam, and I am not going to take the time to moderate and de-spamify 60k+ comments! I guess I will have to figure out a new comment system other than the WordPress native application.

[Edit]  I have now changed the commenting system to Disqus.  I hope that it reduces spam.  We’ll see.  [End Edit]

At any rate, like I said, I am back. You may be asking yourself what event brought me out of my deep slumber, but if you know me (and a few of you do), you probably have a general idea. It was the fact that the TAM 11 website went live today, with an announcement as to identity of the speakers. Having been to the last six TAMs, I think that I have enough expertise to give some comments and previews.

Let’s start with who is not coming to TAM 2013, as I think that this may be more interesting than who is coming:

Phil Plait (not coming).

Until last year, Phil was a mainstay of TAM. His “Don’t Be A Dick” talk may have been one of the greatest talks in the History of TAM. From what I heard, last year he could not make it due to a conflict with San Diego Comic Con, but this year Comic Con is the week after TAM, so that can’t be the reason. One wonders whether there has been a falling out between The Bad Astronomer and the JREF.

Adam Savage (not coming) Another strange one. Adam was a regular, a stalwart, of TAM. His talk on failure is right up there with “Don’t Be A Dick” on the excellence scale. It could be that he had a scheduling conflict, but I have a sneaking suspicion that his friendship with Rebecca Watson, who is apparently in the midst of a perpetual boycott of all things JREF and TAM-related, has something to do with it.

Pamela Gay (not coming). Another stalwart. While I thought her talk last year was a big disappointment, she has come through in the past with great presentations, and her appearance on a panel with Neil DeGrasse Tyson at TAM 9 was one of my all-time TAM highlights.

[Edit] After I posted this, I came across a Tweet by Pamela Gay addressing this situation:

So, for some reason, Pamela got the cold shoulder by the JREF this year, and it seems that she is taking it personally.  Here is the “pict in the ads” that she is talking about, which is part of a photo banner rotation at the very top of the webpage for TAM 2013:

I guess I can understand her annoyance on this point, but it seems a little petty.  After all, the JREF flew her to Vegas and put her up in a hotel year after year.  It’s not like she was a salaryman in Tokyo in 1972 expecting employment for life.

Then there is this bitter-ish exchange:

And then Pamela gets into the bitterness a little deeper, and a TAM speaker, Barbara Drescher responds:

The answer to Barbara’s question was not to her satisfaction:

At this poing, all I can say is this:  If the JREF did not invite Pamela, perhaps they also chose not to invite Phil Plait and Adam Savage.  That would be interesting, and frankly not something that I object to.  One of the biggest issues I have had with the TAM lineup has been the repetition of speakers year after year, and the lack of new blood.  Based on my (admittedly superficial) knowledge of the situation, I do not think that Pamela has a legitimate reason to feel insulted or slighted, or to lash out at Barbara on Twitter.

[End Edit]

Eugenie Scott (not coming). Eugenie’s talks have always been enjoyable and interesting. Too bad she is not here, especially considering some of the other “talent” that the JREF has decided to book.

So, let’s look at some, but by no means all, of the people who have been invited to speak (in no particular order).

Sara Mayhew. (sigh)

I saw her name on the TAM roster and just about vomited. Her talk last year was one of the worst examples of public speaking since Carrie Prejean appeared on Larry King. Her talk at TAM 9 was almost as bad, although I will admit that she was somewhat coherent at TAM 9. I cannot fathom why the illustrious luminaries who book the TAM speakers would even think of inviting her back–she has nothing to add to the discourse, and as far as I have been able do determine, she has never contributed anything of substance to skepticism, science, or anything other than producing a few manga comic books. Seriously, WTF were you thinking, JREF? My only hope is that they schedule her at 2:00 in the afternoon so that I can skip out and get a little nap in. Only time will tell.

Karen Stollznow (Excellent).

I am really happy about this booking. Karen is one of the best writers and thinkers in the skeptical movement today. Unlike Sara Mayhew, she has contributed a lot to skepticism, from her columns in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer to her work on Point of Inquiry, to Monster Talk. TAM needs more speakers like Karen, and less like Sara, in this blogger’s humble opinion.

George Hrab (Good)

George is back as MC. Good choice. George has wit. He has charm. He can play guitar. He can keep things moving as an MC. I just hope he does not repeat the practice of doing singing introductions for he speaker again. That was okay as a one-off, but I would hate to see it become the norm.

Susan Jacoby (Very Good)

A good choice as keynote. Unlike Sara Mayhew (yeah, I know that I keep harping on the JREF booking her, but it is such an awful choice that it bears repeating, over and over again), Susan is a talented author and journalist who has actually contributed to skeptical thought (The Age Of American Unreason is a masterpiece, in this blogger’s opinion).

Susan Blackmore (never heard of her before).

From her bio on the TAM website, she looks qualified to give a good TAM talk (unlike someone else who I could name, but will not, in the interest of not appearing obsessive). Her Book “The Meme Machine” looks pretty interesting.

Reginald Finley (Who knows)

Talk about a blast from the past. Reginald Finley, aka the Infidel Guy, who was a pioneer in atheist podcasting, will be speaking at TAM 2013. I had not heard of him for years, since his podcast disappeared, but he always had a good gift of gab behind the microphone, so I am hopeful that this will be interesting.

Harriet Hall and Sharon Hill (hey, blogging is hard business, and I am getting fatigued, so I am combining the two).

Good, strong choices, two people who have contributed a lot to the skeptical movement, have a lot to say, and know how to say it (at this point a lesser blogger might have gone back to that old chestnut of comparing the two of them to You Know Who, but even I am getting tired of that schtick).

Massimo Polidoro and Massimo Pigliucci (Seriously, two guys named Massimo at the same skeptical conference? What are the odds of that? Considering the high level of intellect of TAM attendees, I bet some of you could calculate it for me).

And all the rest (Good)

The rest of the speakers look like a solid and stalwart bunch.

That’s it for now.

SA

It will come as no surprise to any reader of this blog that hold freethoughtblogs.com in very low esteem.  I was very pleasantly surprised then to receive an email from the creator of a spot-on parody site of FtB and Skepchick.  It is called freethought blahgs, and it is spot-on.  I don’t know who the creator is, but they spent a lot of time an energy relentlessly parodying everything that there is to despise about FtB.  They have the smugness down.  The arrogance–100% correct.  The writing styles–I defy you to tell them apart.  And their motto, “thinkin’ so you don’t have to” is exactly the attitude thrown out by PZ, Rebecca, Greta, Stephanie, and the rest.  Of course, if you dare to think a divergent thought over on the real FtB, you get banned, like poor Thunderf00t, who had been promised freedom to write about what he wanted.

They even have a portion that perfectly parodies Thunderf00t’s former place of honor on FtB:

It is wonderful that larger and larger parts of the skeptical community are realizing the truth–FtB and Skepchicks have become a cancer on our movement.  They want to take over–that much is as clear as glass.  Many people, SA included, don’t want that to happen.  It is great to see some real thought going into calling them out.

Here is a great example of some of their work.  It is from a fake blogger called Femagouge.  The post is called:

Why conferences need sexual harassment policies dictated by bloggers

Now let me paint the best-case near-future, if secular and skeptical leaders do the right thing.

1. Feminist bloggers declare the status quo a nightmare, including the trailblazing groups and progressivist leaders. (check!)

2. Failure of any leaders to immediately acquiesce is determined to be unconscionable sexism; disagreement is unacceptable because feminists only want what is right and just and never err in choosing the correct course toward them. (double-check)

3. Fear of being called out pressures secular leaders to comply, as American Atheists has already done. (check)

4. The feminist bloggers promote/author exclusively policies with vague, over-reaching language such as proscribing “unwanted sexual advances” which could mean almost anything. We’ve already largely succeeded in getting to this point. The secular leaders are then exposed to huge new legal liabilities and take on safety responsibilities they have no means to cover, but that isn’t our problem.

5. As time goes on, we push for more and more restrictive, nebulous policies (just as we have done in the last month) which permit us more and more control over the discourse at conferences we do not run. Any resistance to these changes will be taken as overt sexism. Why else would anyone oppose feminists who are trying to make women safer?

6. The new, nebulous policies will be used to “question”, with extreme prejudice, conferences/organizations who have showed inadequate allegiance to the feminist cause. Harassment victims will be located as necessary, and based on their testimony alone, we will conclude the organizers have violated the policies we pushed them to adopt ultimately pressuring leaders to resign, and leaders we like to take their place. This will have the happy side effect of introducing a fear-based atmosphere at conferences. Harassment will markedly decline, as people become terrified of interacting with each other just the way adults are afraid to interact with kids as a result of pedophilia-paranoia. (See, proof that this CAN work)

7. We will use the leverage from harassment policies to influence other key aspects of conferences such as the topics, invited speakers, banned speakers, choice of venue, accessory recreational venues and events, and more!

This is, of course, what I have been saying for quite some time.  And yes, I love the link back to SA!  Thanks freethoughtblahgs.com,

Go check it out.  You won’t be sorry that you did.

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

A typical SA breakfast at TAM2012:

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.

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:

Carrie talking about her former belief in homeopathy:

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:

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.

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:

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”

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”:

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

SA is a big fan of a little nightlife, and Mr. George Carlin was very important to me growing up in a rural (and very conservative) community, so I decided to see a show put in by his daughter. I have no idea what this is going to be, but I will be live blogging the event.

Apparently George Carlin was a big fan of: The Mary Tyler Moore Show, the Bob Newhart Show, the Carol Burnett Show, the Three Stooges, and Danny Kaye.

When Carlin was 14 years old, his mother bought him a reel-to-reel recorder to practice his voices.

The crowd at 8:05 am:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

“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:

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:

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.

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:

.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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:

Jennifer taking–old school without a PowerPoint

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:

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:

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.

James Randi made a surprise appearance to introduce the speakers:

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:

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:

The relatively empty room:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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”

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