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.
Every day, in between the cracks of our reality, superstitious thinking creeps into our lives. Like a virus of the mind. An idea that becomes infectious, that can ultimately lead to death. If you're asking what this has to do with you, I can bet you're already a victim to one of these.
Pseudoscience sells. The advertisements all around us tell us. Look at the health and beauty industry — much of it relies on packaging and marketing. Anything that has a claim like "supports the immune system" must be healthy, right?
Rhetoric is not new to everyday language. Socrates warned of this in ancient Greece. In school, we teach identifying logical fallacies in psychology classes for a reason — because they work.
The algorithms of social media have already predicted what you are going to want. The decline of critical thinking has left people vulnerable to online predators for the picking. It is a perfect storm.
The odds are stacked against you. That is the bad news. The good news is that we know the counterattack. It is called self-defense for your brain. The Stoics used to say the most important empire to occupy is the one between your ears.
For we are not speaking of some small skirmish. This is for control of the whole kingdom. Someone is always trying to invade your empire. This is how you take it back.
Let's turn the tide and the tables, and get back in the fight.
Everyone is focusing on what is wrong with the world, when we should be turning our attention to what is great about it, and how we can make it better. That starts with becoming better thinkers and decision makers. Then, we can become leaders in anything we choose to do.
"The point of an argument or debate should be progress, not victory."
The initial intention behind the start of this blog was to help other people who were like me and felt lost amongst all of the spiritualness in the world. I could not find my place, but knew I was part of something bigger than just myself. Was I Apache, Navajo, or Hopi? Was I white? Where did my answers lie? In one of those tribal religions or perhaps in the white mans' religion?
I am not trying to change people's minds about their beliefs just because I don't agree with them. I am not out searching the internet looking to debunk myths. I am simply trying to get people to think for themselves and become just a little more skeptical. But, when I say skeptical, I don't mean cynical. I mean scientifically-skeptical. A large portion of science and scientific skepticism is open-mindedness. That tenet should always be clear and present in the forefront of our minds. In order to understand science, you have to get to know skepticism. This is what makes us better critical thinkers.
"You don't change people's minds, you give them the tools to decide on their own."
This is what science, critical thinking, and skepticism have done for me. These tools are proven to be the best ways for vetting new information and attaining knowledge. They can even act as a self-defense system for your brain!
My focus went from studying the things we don't know, to the things we are pretty certain about. Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What is the meaning of these patterns I see in nature? These questions began to seem less relevant to me as my brain was now infatuated with learning as much as I could about the universe and our place in it.
I started my journey thinking that science was all about math and facts. Cold, complex, and boring. Along the way, I found out that it was much more than that, it was "a way of thinking." Now, I see it as being humbling, awe-inspiring, and elegant.
"Who is making all the decisions about science and technology that are going to determine the kind of future our children will live in?" (Sagan 1996)
Carl Sagan on Charlie Rose in 1996.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, are the implications to our civic duties. Socrates used to stress that it wasn't enough for the people of Rome to vote. They needed to be well informed voters. Because, when we stop questioning authority, we leave ourselves open for them to take advantage. Then, the people don't run the government, the government runs the people. Thomas Jefferson was also a big fan of questioning authority because of these same reasons.
Who will govern the governors?" There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. They alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government. (Jefferson 1903-04)
Benjamin Franklin has been quoted as saying, "It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." I hold a similar belief. Socrates believed that ordinary citizens were not fit to govern themselves. He didn't believe that the general public was informed enough to make big decisions and often voted against their best interests. But, I have more hope for people and would like to see a world where more can think for themselves and are not afraid to question authority or the status quo. A place where we can argue constructively and find progress, despite any differences. The aim isn't to win debates, but to be just a bit more skeptical. About as much as you would be when buying a car from someone. It is especially important when we are most vulnerable.
This is the difference that I would like to make in the world. If I could leave a trail for others to follow like bread crumbs, that would be fulfilling. Whether it is through a story or shared experience, the end result is finding some common uniting factor and building upon it.
Jefferson, Thomas. 1903-04. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government. Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors). 20 Vols., Washington, D.C. Can be accessed online at: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0350.htm.
The claim that we are today more divisive than ever, is constantly being thrown out. Identity politics are highly controversial. It has many groups of people annoyed with social justice and political correctness. Mix our cultural differences and religious worldviews with a lack of knowledge of how to navigate the world wide web, and we get the mess of the internet we see today.
We give people the powerful tools of internet technologies but we don't teach anyone how to use them. People don't want to learn and understand how their smartphones function, we just want them to work. This all relates to the Jussie Smollett case.
Now, I am not determining guilt or innocence here. I am addressing the bigger, underlying problem.
It's not about race. It's not about gender. It's not about sexual orientation. It's not even about political party. It's about people not exercising healthy skepticism. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are tailored to our short attention spans. It's all too easy to click "like" and "share". The algorithms that determine our interactions on social media show us more of what we want to see, the more we use them. The inherent bias of race, gender, sexual orientation, and political party that we all bring to every issue get confirmed by them. We validate our own bias and make ourselves feel confident about our preconcieved beliefs.
Now, we all know people make mistakes. We all know people can lie. That being said, how do we know what to believe? There is an antedote to fight bias. At the end of the day, it's evidence that should speak louder than mere claims. Evidence should matter more than what people say, no matter who says it. Reality is what exists whether we believe in it or not. There is too much discussion about the impacts of race and political affiliation. Too much listening to people making claims. Not enough listening to what the evidence is showing.
I get excited when I am talking about science, it's process, and the power it bestows. I am supremely passionate about the importance of critical thinking skills and the pivotal role scientific skepticism plays in making any endeavor successful. What draws me to both science and scientific skepticism, is how they can both be useful to everyone at any level. Kids, young adults, and up to professionals in any field.
How does science and skepticism tie into your life?
I grew up hearing all kinds of stories from different cultures and as a kid I was a fan of reading scary camp fire tales. I was always a pretty avid reader and amongst the collection I consumed were books on the paranormal and supernatural. My cultural beliefs were full of the supernatural, so I already had a foundation in me for things like psychic, ghosts, and monsters like Bigfoot. Not too far removed from that, was new age mysticism. After I started getting into martial arts, I entered a world of eastern philosophy that is filled with energy charts and acupressure points. At some point, I just realized there must be a way to discern what is real and what is the truth as best as it can be defined.
Being such a heavy reader as a child helped with my writing as I got older. The philosophy of martial arts from Bruce Lee lead me into studying Taoism, which prepared me for abstract thinking when I got to ethics and philosophy courses. I feel that my journey on the outside fringes of science ultimately lead me to where I am now. So, I speak from a place of personal knowledge on things I once believed whole heartedly. I make it a point to not dismiss the things I know nothing about. I usually only give my opinion on the things I have experience with and researched myself.
After I got to college, my writing progressed from doing so many essays, technical papers, and projects. After college, I used those skills and combined them with a newfound love for science. Once I discovered how poor the general understanding of science was amongst the public, I quickly identified myself as being one of those people. Science literacy became my new interest.
Why do I care? And why should others?
Carl Sagan was one of the most famous scientists to promote this brand of scientific skepticism. A large part of his work was in informing the public about the dangers of pseudoscience and the importance of being able to differentiate the good from the bad. "Our world is built upon science and technology that people do not understand." If people are not informed, who will make the important decisions that affect the future of where science will take us? That decision should be left to the people. With all of the misinformation on the Internet and the fact that some beliefs can have harmful consequences like those concerning health, the question should be, why doesn't everyone care? Why don't you?
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.
The episode #441 of The Joe Rogan Experience ended up being rather
memorable for some quite unexpected reasons. At first, I was excited by the premise of
Brian Dunning, the host of Skeptoid, being featured as a guest on one of the
other podcasts I actually listen to regularly and personally feel could be used
as a resource to spread the awareness of skepticism and science.
For the most part, I have found that the people that I bring this idea to do not have a good reaction to the notion or do not know what a podcast is. In a grander scheme of things in terms of
the greater good and what the skepticism movement is supposed to be about, or at
least what it means to me, we really should utilize these avenues of popular culture trending right now like YouTube and podcasts. I would love to hear a prominent name being featured as a guest on the Nerdist podcast or have an episode recorded from The Amazing Meeting.
The first major thing that became fixated to my mind and lingered around
throughout the entire episode was making it a point to clarify and define what
it means to be “scientifically literate”, and the importance it serves us as everyday citizens. It's part our civic duty to learn these things. One definition that I pull off from
the top of my head comes from one of the best science communicators doing his thing
today, and that’s no other than Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Here is a clip of the YouTube video I am talking about:
There
are general misconceptions about science and skepticism around anywhere people can be found. For some, sounding
technical is enough for it to be considered science-y. For some others, being a
nay-saying cynic gets misconstrued for being "skeptical." Another giant aspect to the definition of science, that doesn't get discussed enough, is pointing out that the word skeptic as in scientific skepticism also means open-minded. It’s not so centered on a
constant state of disbelief as in the way Joe Rogan represents it to be in this discussion with Brian Dunning. The word skeptic (as I define it at least) is interchangeable
with science, or the scientific perspective, which is always open to new
evidence and constantly changing. My personal views on things are always
changing as I receive more information through experience and as knowledge is
gained. This is where something from another YouTube video this time featuring physicist Richard Feynman comes to
mind:
Another
glaring point that I didn’t really feel like got covered that is
important to
the putting together an accurate portrait of science is how we determine
standards
of evidence or validity. Making a claim is easy for anyone to do; the
real
interesting part is in backing it up, but that also takes the most
effort. It’s
easier to just go along with people than to argue against them too. If
you
disagree with someone, you may feel the burden to justify your position
and
that’s just too much work! So, I can see how sitting in silence can seem
so
much more appealing to your brain in certain circumstances. But, feeling
that
way doesn’t always mean that it’s the right thing to do either. Another
fallacious argument that was repeatedly used resembled the following
form: the government
conspired in the past therefore the current instance in question is a
conspiracy too. That is a bit like saying a specific event is a
conspiracy because
conspiracies exist. Not only is that bad logic, it's just plain ole lazy thinking.
Vitamins are an important subject to skeptics and
consumer protection activists because it deals with something that concerns
everyone, health. We all have our own definitions of what it means to be
“healthy”. Not many people receive much education in nutrition, but that
doesn’t stop anybody from formulating an opinion and thinking they know what’s
best for them- health wise. In this instance, a recent relay of research covered
by the media spouting that vitamins are a waste of money got Joe up in arms and
arguing that vitamins are beneficial. However, the media headline was
misleading and the research did not show vitamins to have "completely no
benefits", but what it did indicate is that additional dietary supplementation
is not necessary for most people eating a regular varied diet. And what they did say is that, "using supplements and multivitamins to prevent chronic conditions is a waste of money." In other words,
vitamins don’t work in the specific manner that the nutrition industry is currently
selling them to us. But, I understand how these personal views can become emotionally
charged and this particular area is prone to Joe and I would expect a strong knee jerk reaction or some
resistance at the least. It was hard for me to let go of some of the nutritional
claims that I had bought into early on from getting immersed in bodybuilding. High
school can drive some boys to do crazy things just to get a competitive edge or
that feeds into an urge to get bigger and much of it is based on anecdote and placebo. Joe oversimplified the multi-vitamin research study being
discussed and the misinterpretation seemed to me most likely due to the
misleading media headlines. The vitamin c claims being made were vague. There
is some validity to vitamin c shortening the lifespan of colds, but not so much preventing them. Ultra high doses of anything are generally not a good idea.
Some claims do not hold up while others can have risks that are more harmful
than they are beneficial.
The
others things that bothered me were not the topics themselves, but the manner
in which they were presented.
For instance, I found the debate over what Dr. Mark Gordon said in a prior episode # 438 about a chemical called glutathione and effects on the liver it had when drinking alcohol that
caused Brian to shut off the episode and describes an experience closely
resembling the uncomfortable feeling of distress that I had while listening to this part of his
conversation with Joe. After they replayed and listened to the prior segment in question during the show,
Joe clarified what the doctor had said and Brian stood by his original statement. I
remember when the initially started the conversation that it prompted me to
start thinking about the interview because I had just listened to that episode
and found the doctors’ statement to be suggestive, but it wasn’t clear to me it
was being recommended. After they brought the subject up, I remembered listening to this episode the
day it became available for download and my memory of that show didn’t include
the sort of menacing portrayal as described by Dunning’s experience. But, I
also recall not being too convinced by the evidence Dr. Gordon did provide either, such as the
one little anecdote that gets brought up.What did seem to
stand out about this part of the conversation is that Brian appeared eager and
bent on being confrontational based on something I believe he misheard.
Perhaps, being hyper focused on activism can lead to fighting fights that are
not effectively helpful in the spreading of the original intended message.
At the end of the
day, skeptics are susceptible to their own psychology too. It’s just that as
skeptics, we are often aware of these pitfalls in thinking and intently seek
out contradictory evidence. However, as we are all flawed and biased we are all
guilty on occasion of hearing what we want to hear, or perhaps in some cases,
we don’t hear what we weren’t listening for, and being aware of our bias
doesn’t make us immune to it.
I did happen to agree with Joe when he echoed a common mantra that gets thrown
around often when discussing the topic of skeptical outreach and scientific
debates; “sometimes being a dick can take all the attention away from the point
you are trying to make.” It’s like you can literally hear a giant slurping
sound during the middle of a conversation from everyone’s attention leaving the
room all at once like a vacuum. Joe
often justifies his positions by pointing out how smart people are or how
educated they are, as he does a couple times in this episode, but we have many
examples of smart people being demonstrably wrong. Take someone as seemingly
intelligent as Dr. Oz promoting homeopathy and other questionable forms of
alternative medicine and pseudoscience for instance. However, I would like to give credit and point out
that I have recognized a change over the years listening to the show.
Guests
like Sam Harris or Neil deGrasse Tyson seem to corral the conversation into
staying within reason by breaking down ideas before tangents go too far down
the rabbit hole. Even the silly conversations are so much more interesting when
one or more people in a party are scientifically literate, then you can really nerd out
properly. Like what often happens on The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. I
really enjoy these conversations the most and feel that I get more out of these
types of episodes too. Joe also appears to be much more pliable in these
scenarios than the common misconception that many people hold of him in the
skeptical community. Much of this is due to the history surrounding Joe and his
former beliefs that the Moon landings were a hoax, amongst a few other
conspiracy theories thrown in there too. When Joe had a debate with astronomer Phil Plait on Penn Jillette’s show, it got the attention of the scientific and
skeptical communities. So, I can see the need of some damage control on both
sides. Joe has since relinquished many of these beliefs but has been written
off long ago and said to be too far gone in his irrationality. After someone
brought the whole Moon debacle to my attention, I initially felt that way too. It
would be one thing if it was strictly an all hardcore comedy show, but the fact
is that most of the time it treads into scientific topics of discussion lends
itself to criticism. In the past I have proposed to other notable skeptics that
there is some potential for outreach on Joe Rogan’s podcast, but for many there
is still a bad taste left after the whole Moon incident. There are so many
times in conversations that I wished Dr. Steve Novella from the SGU was there to discuss
experiences of the brain that people have or when there is a weird news story
in the media that Sharon Hill from Doubtful News could help put into perspective by providing
further insight with a little back story.
I noticed things that have changed
for the better especially with recent Joe Rogan Experience episode featuring from something you might have already sensed, psychics. It was
pleasantly surprising and I feel is definitely the most skeptical thing he has done. At one point he slips and calls himself a skeptic, only to quickly retort. It
features an engagement with another prominent skeptic and world class
mentalist, Banachek. This podcast episode JRQE5 with Duncan Trussell was recorded during the production of Joe Rogan Questions Everything which originally aired on SyFy and it
discusses how that meeting not only changed
their perception of all psychics, but reality as well.
I was really hoping for this episode to be an
opportunity to share the ideas of what skepticism, science, and critical
thinking has to offer everyone and the importance they are to the way we
acquire knowledge about the modern world we live in today. So, I guess what bothered me the most and got me down was the lost opportunity to point out what distinguishes
something as being scientific and the notion that it's the same perspective that lies in the heart of skepticism wasn’t
stressed at all. “Skepticism and science are not so much
about what you think; it’s about how
you think.” And
it is possible to have an
intellectual debate that is still lighthearted that others can learn and grown from. I would just like to hear or see them in more places other then skeptics podcasts.
I am so grateful for the opportunities that have arisen through my work with skeptical activism. Since the start of this blog, I have found and joined a local Skeptics in the Pub meetup group and took part in the establishment and founding of a non-profit educational organization, the Phoenix Area Skeptics Society(PASS). For the most part, it is quite rare to find people doing things they are passionate about with intentions of receiving praise or recognition for them. The work is the reward. However, sometimes positive attention and the constructive criticism from peers can have a profound impact on validating efforts. So, I was proud to take part in this interview with the deputy editor of the Skeptical Inquirer, research
fellow at the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,and the go toscientific paranormal investigatorBenjamin
Radford. He is author or co-author of six books and over a thousand
articles on skepticism, critical thinking, and science literacy. Topics that he covers include urban legends, the paranormal, and media literacy. The
newest book from Mr. Radford is titled, The Martians Have Landed: A History of Media Panics and Hoaxes. Amongst all of this great work educating the public, he also finds the time to be a columnist for Discovery News and LiveScience.com.
Seeing my name and this blog under the Center for Inquiry banner
displays to me a respect for Native American beliefs that rarely get
acknowledged. The voices from the First Nations of people in America got
just a bit louder.
You can follow the link to the entry on the CFI website by clicking in the text or by going here.
This interview originally appeared in the Skeptical Briefs newsletter, Volume 21.3, Fall 2011, which featured a longer version.
"End of the world" scenarios are common to cultures around the globe. There are many commonalities found throughout the various groups of people on Earth. Sometimes that can include symbols that resemble each other, or in other cases, similar stories and beliefs. Quite often, it is the fundamental misunderstanding of Native American religions that shows its' ugly little head in our current American culture and manifests itself in society as an attempt to "bridge the gap" between how they view Native beliefs to be and the patterns that they see in the world. One example of such profound misrepresentation and misuse of "The Power" and Native Americans' cultural myths and stories appears in a special engagement called the Wisdom from the Origins Conference*.
*This article originally appeared in Volume 22.3 of the Skeptical Briefs 2012 Fall
edition.
I have written a few articles for the Skeptical Briefs
ranging in subjects from cryptozoology (the study of hidden animals) to
witchcraft. I try to offer a more critical look that is often not found
as another resource for those interested in putting together a more
accurate representation of what Native American beliefs actually depict.
Some topics covered include; Navajo Skinwalkers, Native American
Legends, and the New Age Mysticism that shows up around Native American
Spirituality.
Recently, I was privileged with an opportunity to share some insight into Native American culture and offer a unique brand of skepticism to the associate members of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), a nonprofit scientific educational organization.
Not only does CSI offer a network of people interested in seeing paranormal investigations (or anything considered to be "fringe" ) using science appropriately, but it also publishes an official journal, Skeptical Inquirer magazine. The list of founding members of CSI includes some rather well
known scientists, academics, and science writers such as Carl Sagan,
Isaac Asimov, Philip Klass, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman, James Randi, and
Martin Gardner. If you needed another reason to join, CSI also offers the Skeptical Briefs, a special newsletter with articles featuring regular columnists and different skeptical groups from around the world, exclusively to its' *Associate Members.
I have written a few articles for the Skeptical Briefs ranging in subjects from cryptozoology (the study of hidden animals) to witchcraft. I try to offer a more critical look that is often not found as another resource for those interested in putting together a more accurate representation of what Native American beliefs actually depict. Some topics covered include; Navajo Skinwalkers, Native American Legends, and the New Age Mysticism that shows up around Native American Spirituality.
Those at CSI have graciously made some past articles available online, not just from the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, but the Skeptical Briefs newsletter as well! So, for those of you who are not Associate Members of CSI and have not been able to read any of my past articles, here is your chance to check one of them out, Thunderbirds.
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
The majority of the content in this particular post was inspired in light of the 2007 article by Canadian writer, illustrator, and Editor of Junior Skeptic magazineDaniel Loxton titled, "Where Do We Go From Here"
[PDF]. This also helped serve for some background on the purpose of the newly established
Phoenix Area Skeptics Society (PASS). It clearly lays out the future of skepticism and some of the reasons
why, "skepticism is a movement with a mission: to organize an effort to discover reality, to expose fraud — and to help people."
“Our underlying interest is not the paranormal per se, but
the larger topics and issues such as how our beliefs in such things arise, how
our minds work to deceive us, how we think, how our critical thinking
capabilities can be improved.”(Loxton 2007)
In the end,
We can
decrease the total number of
scams and help clear up confusions.
We can
reduce the total amount of harm
suffered by victims and potential victims.
We can
make things less profitable or more difficult for specific kinds
of scam artists." (Loxton 2007)
A couple of weeks ago, I came across this site by a self proclaimed "skeptic" promoting health and nutrition called, 'The Healthy Skeptic'. At first, I was enthralled to find another skeptical podcast that could be a potential source which I could listen to about nutritional information from a scientifically inclined perspective. As I began listening to a podcast episode, it did not take me very long to notice a few instances of my skeptical "spidey sense" going off. Upon closer examination, I saw that the main website had some interesting claims about acupuncture under the special "myth busting" section. Chris Kresser is a licensed acupuncturist who calls himself the "Healthy Skeptic", so I was more than intrigued to learn more about his premise that "everything we’ve been taught about Chinese medicine in the West isn’t accurate and is a functional, flesh and bones medicine based on the same basic physiology as western medicine." (Kresser 2010) Of course I wanted to see the evidence, after all, he does have the word "skeptic" in his title and it was provided for me in a series of six separate sections titled "Chinese Medicine Demystified". The following is a great example of some common logical fallacies, that ANY intelligent person can make, and includes my critique of what I encountered upon reviewing each section.
“All is to be doubted, of everything doubtful be", or "question everything” a motto often attributed to the French philosopher, Rene Descartes. This also falls in line with another motto, one of skepticism. Part of being a teenager going through the difficulties of adolescence begins with this process of questioning everything, especially if that thing is authoritative, intellectual, or political. This is also the primary process of any serious inquiry into education. Unless you just happen to be a skeptical thinker by nature, which is not usually the case, this is not going to be your way of reasoning.
The city of Athens was one of the greatest ancient civilizations in history. One of the most influential men to be produced by Athens was a philosopher named Socrates. During the course of his life he became arguably one of the greatest minds who ever lived. Socrates was viewed in a number of ways. One was as a great philosopher and teacher. Another was as an antagonistic pest and the anti-democratic character of Athens. Although he was loved by many he was also widely hated. The effects of his teachings, beliefs, and relationships would ultimately lead him to a trial for his life. To quote the author of The Trial of Socrates by I.F. Stone,
“No other trial, except that of Jesus, has left so vivid an impression on the imagination of Western man as that of Socrates” (3).
In a city known for its’ culture, arts, and democratic freedoms, it’s hard to imagine how a person like Socrates could fall into such a predicament. Again the common reoccurring theme is present, it is through deeper understanding that we may come to find logic or reason where it previously did not appear. Or in other words, when the context of Socrates’ background is examined, it is easier to see how the people of Athens came to the conclusion that they did.
Skeptically Speakingis a show that interviews researchers, authors and experts to help listeners understand the evidence, arguments and science behind what’s in the news and on the shelves. A little bit of skepticism goes a long way.
With humour, enthusiasm and a lot of curiosity, Skeptically Speaking guides you through the fascinating world of science and critical thinking.
Note: The term “skepticism” may be new to you. If that’s the case, click here. Or read my post on science & skepticism
Take a listen to my opening interview on the "Speaking Up" portion of the show, where I discuss my blog and critical thinking from a Native American perspective.
"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.
