For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this site, please feel free to read my "Diary of a Native Skeptic" page, especially if this is your first visit.
One of my proudest accomplishments to date was for something that I did for the Committee for Scientific Inquiry and the Skeptical Briefs newsletter. I was asked to write some articles special for the subscribers to the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine. For my first article, I decided to investigate the subject of Native American Thunderbirds.
I was proud of the work and how the piece came out, it was more exciting to see the finished product amongst other skeptics that I hold in high regards such as Sharon Hill of the Doubtful News website and one of the most prolific scientific paranormal investigators, Joe Nickell. I would print out copies to hand out to my friends and family. However, for this particular subject I got much more involved. For instance, I did not just include pictures for the sake of including them. I went out and around the city, even visiting a museum, to capture the Native American influences specifically depicting Thunderbirds.
Like most with most scientific investigations, I ended up spending most of the time in the library. I remember being excited to see that first issue come in the mail. It wasn't until months later that I received an e-mail from my then editor, scientific paranormal investigator extraordinaire Benjamin Radford, asking me if he could reference my article in his new book. I was floored.
Somewhere down the line, I moved, got away from writing for a while and just when I forgot about the article, my Mom called me with the news that she had gotten the book, Mysterious New Mexico: Miracles, Magic, and Monsters In the Land of Enchantment. It meant more to me that she got to see it before I did. Once I got that copy in my hand, I found and flipped it to Chapter 7 Thunderbirds: Mysterious Giants in the Sky to find my name amongst the list of references.
I guess there was never a feeling of real accomplishment until that moment. You don't really know if people are actually reading what you write. But, once someone contacts me or something like this happens, it makes it all seem like it was a successful endeavor. That was probably one of my most proudest accomplishments to date. It is weird to see my name in the work cited page of a published book, and at the same time, I always knew I would be in a book someday. Perhaps, I will write my own book next!
The thing that most consistently makes me happy, is helping others. I love it when people I know, or don't know, ask me questions. Whether it is about Native American culture or even things like the paranormal or supernatural, I am always intrigued to hear the next story. But, mostly my friends just ask me if a story is real or fake. I have had people write to me and introduce new mysteries and interesting research topics too.
People appreciate the thoughtfulness behind the responses more than the actual answers themselves. Usually, I think people are already leaning towards something not being true before they even ask me. Sometimes, things are just confusing due to all the noise on the Internet. Pick any subject, and like Alice go down the bunny hole where the information gets messy quick. Medicine has alternative medicine, astronomy has astrology, and physics has quantum new age mysticism. There is an imposter trying to cheaply imitate nearly every field of science.
It is nice when people thank me for helping them find an answer, but the thing that makes me feel happy is when I can show them how to do it on their own. It's like helping others get fish by catching them myself. But, what my goal is for them to be able to catch their own fish. I would like it if people could better find things out for themselves. That is a good feeling. These are things I would do without being paid to do them.
Ultimately, I like leadership roles and seek out teaching opportunities. That is probably why the most influential people in my life have been my Mother, philosophers, and science giants like Carl Sagan. Coaching is something I am passionate about because I understand the importance of learning and the ways that education can help people living in poverty to get out of it. So, there is no better feeling to me than knowing I have helped to give someone the tools to figure things out for themselves. That's real empowerment.
What constantly makes you mad about the world? What do you wish was different about it?
The thing that constantly makes me angry about the world is pseudoscience. It's misleading, often unethical, and even dangerous. People that use pseudoscience to knowingly deceive by operating off of others ignorance and vulnerabilities is the worst of the worst to me. The modern day snake-oil salesman.
I wish that everyone could distinguish science from pseudoscience. I wish the world paid teachers good salaries, admired their roles more, and were held with more respect. Maybe that would turn out better science teachers and in effect improve general science education.
I wish critical thinking was taught on a scale that rivals other subjects like the most common academic ones so that people would be given decision making and tools for reason to figure things out for themselves. It would make it tougher to be taken advantage of, and at the same time, easier to acquire new knowledge. Learning critical thinking is like self-defense training for your brain. Mental Jiu-Jitsu.
I wish that science was as big a part of popular culture as any celebrity is today and scientific language was more a part of the public lexicon. A world with less pseudoscience, is a world filled with less noise.
Science is something we all like to think we know, but my personal experience has shown me that nothing could be further from the truth.
Back in 1989, American astronomer and science communicator Carl Sagan spoke about the problem of having such a lack of science literacy amongst the general public in an article for the Skeptical Inquirer. He cites a then recent survey which suggested that, "94 percent of Americans are 'scientifically illiterate'" (Sagan 1989). An example of it appearing in our culture came with a story about an encounter he had with a driver picking him up from the airport named Mr. Buckley who recognized his name and excitedly wanted to ask the popular scientist a few questions.
"Mr. “Buckley”—well-spoken, intelligent, curious—had heard virtually nothing of modern science. He wanted to know about science. It’s just that all the science got filtered out before it reached him. What society permitted to trickle through was mainly pretense and confusion. And it had never taught him how to distinguish real science from the cheap imitation" (Sagan 1989).
That is the perfect way to describe pseudoscience, cheap imitation.
1. Sagan, Carl. 1990. Why We Need To Understand Science. Skeptical Inquirer. (Vol. 14.3). Available online: (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_we_need_to_understand_science).
Never have I felt so humbled, insignificant, and at the same time connected to everything than I do with a scientific worldview. Hopefully, I will start even more connections as this process goes on. For the next few weeks, I am going to start the exercise of writing new posts on the regular. One every other day. This first post will be a short story about my background, why I decided to start this blog, and what I hope to get out of it.
There are countless blogs out there, and you pick almost any subject, there are hundreds of them dedicated to it. So, that begs the next question, what will make my blog site different from the plethora of science and skeptics blogs?
Firstly, I wanted to do something that would make a difference. Something that would matter. Initially, I just wanted to put things in my head out there and found a larger community of like-minded individuals that inspired me to do better. I felt a gained responsibility to help others not be taken advantage of and grew into a consumer advocate. It felt like it was my civic duty. These are the things I feel to be most important and promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking are causes I believe to be worth following. This is my way of doing something to make the world to be a better place by helping others. These are things that changed my life and I know they will do the same for others.
I had the unique experience of growing up going between a major metropolitan city to a lowly reservation. Throughout my childhood, I would visit my family on and around the reservation during my breaks from school. Eventually, I spent a great deal of time living there. After being in these somewhat compete opposite places, I still feel like I am not fully here or there, but still wondering somewhere in between.
In a long round about way that brings me to why I decided to start this blog in the first place and what I hoped to get out of it. While everyone has their own unique experience and perspectives, there are not many Native American scientific skeptics. Even less Apache, Navajo, and Hopi skeptics. As am I.
From the beginning, my intentions were to show my work of how I began the transition from a spiritual person seeking answers to the meaning of life and the universe and obsessed with knowing God, to the heathen obsessed with science and reason that I am today. In the midst of all that, I was also forced to confront all the tribal belief systems that were just as big a part of my personal identity as the Christian one. So, maybe this is my way of talking to my younger self and giving the advise I needed to shorten the journey and better filter out all the noise. A way to save people from wasting it on the unlikely; paranormal, supernatural, Qi fields, alternative medicine, and eastern medicine modalities. Instead of starting my investigations on what we don't know, I flipped the script and focused in on what we do know.
Thus began my adventure traveling through hundreds of years of science history! But, I will save that story for another time.
This all stems from a red carpet interview E! did at the premier to The Other Woman. Last April, E! Online published, Cameron Diaz Hasn't Used Antiperspirant...in 20 Years!, by Marc Malkin. When the subject of antiperspirants came up, Diaz responded that she did not believe in them and went on to clarify that, "It's really bad for you. I haven't used it for almost 20 years." She then goes on to share many of her other personal views about how she thinks human biology and science work by soliciting some advise from her book, The Body Book. Last January, Kate Dries documented a personal experiencereading the book in the article for Jezebel titled, Cameron Diaz's Body Book is Actually Pretty Good, and uses the following quote that Diaz does in her book,
"I'm not a scientist. I'm not a doctor. What I am is a woman who has
spent the past fifteen years learning about what my body is capable of,
and it has been the most rewarding experience of my life."
Just to be upfront, I am not a scientist or doctor either. However, the major deciding factor that is being overlooked here is scientific literacy. Not all claims are equal in merit and just because something sounds, or seems to be scientific, doesn't mean that it is science or that it's true. When lies and cons are informed by some truth and appeal to our emotions, it makes things cloudy so that being smart isn't good enough. Smart people can make mistakes just like the not-so-smart people can be correct from time to time. Without a good definition of what the process of science is, the less likely you are to have any sense of what it should look like and the likelihood of pseudoscience infiltrating your web browser grows. Smart people fall for not-so-smart things all the time. Sometimes we believe things too, for no good reason. It's not a stretch, or novel, to say people are irrational. But, what's not being said enough is that we need tools to help us with our psychological blindspots and personal biases. That's precisely what critical thinking and science literacy can provide.
While she doesn't address anything specific or make any sort of definitive claim, she seems to be convinced that what she does know, is that they are "...really bad for you." This prompted me to look just a bit further for myself to see if there is any reason, or evidence, for such concern.
The University Health Network in Toronto, Canada took to the streets last February 4th to promote World Cancer Day and see what people thought about this very question and give them some facts in a special YouTube video they put together titled, Cancer Mythbusters: Antiperspirants and breast cancer.
Anti-perspirants have been identified as the leading cause of breast cancer.
The specific claim that, anti-antiperspirants have been identified as the leading cause in breast cancer, has been looked at quite thoroughly by one the greatest skeptical tools available online, Snopes.
If you are not familiar with this site as a resource, I'd recommend
bookmarking it to memory for the next urban myth you come across. In 2003, the article titled Misleading Medical Myths Spread Quickly Over Internet was published by NewsOK
warning the general public about some medical myths circulating like a
chain e-mail at the time. One of the claims that made number two on the
list also going out to physicians in an issue of MDnet Guide magazine notifying them about certain urban myths gaining popularity, is the one claiming that anti-perspirants/deodorant cause breast cancer. Apparently, the rumor got bad enough for the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health to respond with this fact sheet about anti-perspirants/deodorant and breast cancer. A key point in the document states,
"There is no conclusive research linking the use of underarm
antiperspirants or deodorants and the subsequent development of breast
cancer." But, there is also another point that completed research
studies were inconclusive because they produced conflicting results.
Some may interpret that differently. One thing that's for sure is that
you can't extrapolate that we know for sure what causes any specific
type of cancer from these studies. So, where else might these fears
perspire from?
In the 'Health, Wellness, and Hygiene Tips for Body Odor' section of the How Stuff Works website, there is a more than I, and probably you, would ever want to know about body odor in the article titled, How Body Odor Works. The subject of anti-antiperspirants and deodorants comes up five pages in; where it goes through a brief history of deodorant, some science behind it, and a few examples of alternatives. The aforementioned concerns and uncertainties surrounding the safety of aluminum-based deodorants shows up once again in the little informational box that appears on the side of the piece and states the following,
"The safety of aluminum-based deodorants has been the cause for much
debate. Some studies seem to have indicated that antiperspirants can
increase breast cancer risks, but according to the National Cancer
Institute and FDA, there's no conclusive evidence to tie the two
together. Additionally, a study done in the 1960s indicated that there
was a higher presence of aluminum in the brains of Alzheimer's patients,
which has lead to the persistent belief that antiperspirants can
contribute to the disease. However, according to the Alzheimer's
Association, studies released since that time have failed to confirm
aluminum's role in causing Alzheimer's."
A brief explanation of just what body odor is and some things to do about it, appears on the blog site Science Knowledge under the article titled, Deodorants and Antiperspirants. It also mentions that there are other alternatives which include masking scents and germicides. There is also a funny example going with this telling of how they test antiperspirants with control groups. The post eventually comes around to breaking down the active ingredients to what makes up an antiperspirant, and addresses some of these concerns in the following excerpt,
"Finally, it’s important to address one of the very real risks of
antiperspirants. No, it’s not breast cancer or Alzheimer’s disease,
despite what you might have read in imaginative email chain letters. For
the record, aluminum, the key ingredient in antiperspirants, is the
third most common element on our planet, and it’s found in food, air,
and over-the-counter medications like antacids, all of which provide
more aluminum than you can absorb from an antiperspirant through your
skin. Furthermore, the amount of waste your sweat glands excrete is
small, so there’s no reason to think that slowing down a few sweat
glands can increase the level of toxins in your blood."
The real downsides to antiperspirants appear to be found in their limited application to be effective on certain glands, so they don't "suppress" the smell from "apocrine glands." Based on the evidence gathered, the only dangers that I can determine surrounding this whole subject, are embarrassment from excessive sweating and staining. The amount and the sweat itself can also indicate other health concerns that could be more serious, like diabetes or thyroid disease as well.
The How Stuff Works article had one other gem of advise that stood out to me amongst all the information sifted through,
"Because everyone's body chemistry is different, it may take a bit of
experimentation to find a natural deodorant that works for you but the
science of making the skin's surface unfriendly to bacteria is sound,
and thousands of people use these products successfully every day."
Unfortunately, some people might argue that the research from big organizations like the American Cancer Society, the FDA, or the National Institutes for Health cannot be trusted because they are part of some elaborate umbrella government conspiracy allowing the poisoning of the general public. But, then I might argue that you might have bigger, more urgent problems of concern than the aluminum in your deodorant.
Check out this YouTube clip displaying a classic bit of skeptical insight featuring famous actor
and director Orson Welles speaking about "cold readings" during an
interview with Sir David Frost back in the '70's.
"...salespersons, hypnotists, advertising pros, faith healers, con men, and some therapists bank on their subject's inclination to find more meaning in a situation than there actually is. The desire to make sense out of experience can lead us to many wonderful discoveries, but it can also lead us to many follies." (Carroll 2012)
Where some people see special powers...
I see a whole lot of practice.
Source: 1. Carroll, Robert T., cold reading. The Skeptic's Dictionary. Last updated April 2, 2012. http://www.skepdic.com/coldread.html. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
The amount of suffering that individual can experience with the loss of a family
member or close loved one can be truly unimaginable. Consider that there is a business
or business person making the claims that they can provide a specific service to these
people and their plights (even when the claims themselves have never been proven). Now, take that a step further
and include the details that some of these cases involve people with prior
convictions in fraud and grand theft.
For example, Sylvia Browne calls herself a "psychic" and claims to be able to
communicate with the dead. However, there is no reason to believe that anyone,
let alone this one person, is doing anything other than performing simple acts
of deception. Matter of fact, she is so good at deceiving people that she has
been convicted of investment fraud and grand theft. *For more on this, see the
story of Sylvia
Browne's 1992 felony conviction in a case involving charges of grand theft and
securities fraud.
Browne is quite popular among the known psychics in the world, James Van Praagh and John Edwards are a couple more known, and even
amongst the people with less familiarity with psychic phenomena. Even just her
name can produce strong reactions in people. To some of her devoted fans, she
is a "true psychic-medium" that utilizes the help of a "spirit
guide" named Francine. This is how she is able to see the
future, diagnose illnesses, find lost children, and of course, communicate with
the dead. To some others, she has never been able to prove any psychic or
supernatural abilities. While using the stage tricks of magic like "cold-readings" to simulate psychic abilities isn’t in itself a ethical concern.
Using this as a means to prey on the grieving, the ill, and the spiritually
vulnerable is another thing all together. It is quite often during these readings that people selectively remember
certain things and forget others, like the things the "psychic" got
right, as opposed to the things that were wrong. This is often referred
to as, "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses." We are not
accustomed to seeing the "misses", however, Van Praagh demonstrates what
this looks like in the following YouTube clip from the Australian television show, "The Circle" on "Channel Ten".
A computer programmer named Robert S. Lancaster started up a
site called, “Stop Sylvia Browne”, dedicated to
helping people make up their own mind about this very subject. Mr. Lancaster
makes it quite clear what his site and campaign are all about with the
following response from the ‘frequently asked questions’ main page,
“Because I strongly
believe that Sylvia Browne needs to either prove her purported ‘psychic
abilities’, or stop pretending to have them.”
One very important message gets relayed from the readers’
inquiries when he is asked, “Why should we believe you?” This is a legitimate
question, and good enough that it has me puzzled to why nobody ever poses it to
the psychics. Instead, Lancaster
gives his own answer, and at the same time, provides a much better explanation
of the reasoning process by stating,
“You shouldn't. You
should read and consider the contents of this site. You should dig around the
web and see what you can find. If you can, find out what Sylvia's justifications
are for some of the things you read here. Then, you should make up your own
mind.”
This is excellent advice and a stance that all critical
thinking citizens should utilize to protect themselves from the subtle and
not-so-subtle nonsense that permeates our society. This is not just to serve as
protection for the consumer, but to empower individuals through the knowledge
of reason. Take this last part from Lancaster’s
home page as he leaves us with an invitation to explore reason before investing
anything emotionally or financially.
“But here is a
further comment, regarding TV/Celebrity psychics in general: It is important to
remember that the producers of a TV show which claims to be about a ‘true
psychic’ have a financial interest in making you
believe that person is psychic. Because of this, you should never assume that
what you see on the show is an accurate and unbiased representation of facts
and events.”
Two "psychics" or
“spiritual mediums” are coming to the valley of the sun. The first,
James Van Praagh, will be appearing this week at an event put on the "Changing Hands Bookstore" in Tempe, Arizona
on Thursday March 26, 2012 at 7:00pm. The event to follow features, Chip Coffey, next monthonFriday April 20, 2012 at 7:30pm. The Phoenix Area Skeptics Society will be outside of these events to hand out flyers and some
general information. Any questions or comments can be sent to: phoenixskeptics@gmail.com
"Recently at the 30th anniversary conference of the Council for Secular Humanism in Los Angeles, leading science blogger PZ Myers and Point of Inquiry host Chris Mooney appeared together on a panel to discuss the questions, How should secular humanists respond to science and religion? If we champion science, must we oppose faith? How best to approach flashpoints like evolution education?"
The next day, the three reprised their public debate for a special episode of Point of Inquiry. <--This is the unedited cut of that three way conversation.
Chris Mooneyis a 2009-2010 Knight Science Journalism Fellow at MIT and the author of three books, The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and Unscientific America.
PZ Myersis a biologist at the University of Minnesota-Morris who, in addition to his duties as a teacher of biology and especially of development and evolution. Also, the author of Pharyngula, the most heavily-trafficked science blog online.
Jennifer Michael Hechtis the author of award-winning books of philosophy, history, and poetry, including: Doubt: A History (HarperCollins, 2003); The End of the Soul: Scientific Modernity, Atheism and Anthropology (Columbia University Press, 2003); and The Happiness Myth, (HarperCollins in 2007). Her work appears in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Republic, and The New Yorker. Hecht earned her Ph.D. in History from Columbia University in 1995 and now teaches in the graduate writing program of The New School University.
Based upon modern medical science, the most efficient way to effectively protect the general public from disease is through vaccination. When it comes to facing the unknown, fear and uneasiness are natural reactions. Personal or core belief systems can have powerful influences over our perception. In some cases, decisions based from those personal belief systems can result in extremely emotional states, leaving some potentially susceptible to irrational decisions, such as parents not vaccinating their children because of some naturalistic fallacy. But, through methods and strategies, like those applied through IHS to the Native American/Alaskan Native people, we can get all the way through that gauntlet of logically fallacious, pseudoscientific terminology, that’s ultimately fueled by the fear of science. We can help educate our neighbors by providing the basic means for finding things out for themselves or simply quashing these modern myths whenever and wherever we encounter them. Maybe by helping enough parents to navigate through this information with sound scientific information and basic critical thinking, we can immunize enough belief systems from infectious pseudoscience to effectively produce the effects of herd immunity to the rest of the community.
Hello, fellow people of inquiry. I wanted to make an official post of my introduction to all newcomers to the free thinking community of skepticism. Explaining what "to be skeptical" actually is takes some skill. There's more to it than the common misconceptions that define skeptics as simply, a person who "doubts" indiscriminately. In fact, skepticism itself is more accurately depicted as a movement among critical thinkers, inquiring minds interested in science who apply scientific thinking to reason, or people like me who have always been more analytical in nature, "questioning everything."
As kids, most of us at a certain age bombard our parents with enough questions to drive them crazy, but as we grow up, going through adolescence, we begin to start formulating more solid beliefs about the world, how we perceive it to be, and somewhere we begin to stop questioning things. But in my case, I guess I never really ever grew out of that phase because I went all through college challenging every professor, textbook, classroom discussion, while most were starting to solidify their own principles of reason based upon all of their personal biases acquired up to that point. Another aspect that influenced my journey to skepticism was introduced to me by the famous philosopher, Socrates. During an ambitious attempt to write a provocative and somewhat controversial subject for my advanced composition course, while still maintaining that theme of being a college age revolutionist that challenges all authority, I chose to take on "The Trial and Death of Socrates". Philosophy, or the Socratic method, planted a seed with a question, "What is knowledge?" If you cannot define that for yourself, then how can you maintain the claim that you truly "know" anything?
