The Amazing Meeting 2011
Omg, wall of text time. Basically all of my notes from TAM (skeptical thinking/science convention). I'm posting for backup and to send to my friends who were there with me some of the days but not all.
Friday
Michael Shermer- The Believing Brain
-people naturally listen to everything they're told in case it's true, it's evolutionary to be overly cautious
-if a conspiracy seems really big/general, it's probably not true. they tend to be pretty narrow in scope- not world domination
(I've heard this talk before at science symposium, and this new book just sounds like an updated "Why People Believe Weird Things", plus I'm a psych major so I know a lot of this already. Shermer's talks are also kinda boring, and it was way too early to pay attention anyway!)
Skepticism on TV panel: Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Joe Nickell, Adam Savage, James Randi
-if on TV, make it clear early that something is untrue, you can't control TV editing. Don't skip the process of testing a claim, either, give people the tools to figure it out in the future
-give your points clearly quickly, they can't edit that
Eugenie Scott- Denialism of Climate Change and Evolution
there are 3 major similarities between climate change and evolution denial arguments:
Evolution
1. evolution is bad science
2. the dichotomy: you can only have evolution or religion, you can't have both
3. it's only fair to teach both
Climate change
1. weak science support
2. "anticapitalist, liberals just want to control us!"
3. unfair to impose fixes for anything until everyone agrees it exists!
-both find people to dissent the science, even if those people don't have expertise on the subject, such as degrees in "general science" (getting many signatures from them)
-people with BAs, 30% of scientists isn't that many, it's like 3% of the field
-the most effective tactic they have with this is claiming evidence is insufficient/lacking, or finding a single anomaly
-often say it's cooler after a certain point in time, if you go back a year or since 2008 it increases. They tend to show the one time ice levels weren't going down
-spread by and to the public, not as science. There's fake grass roots organizations with a lot of money behind them.
-critical of peer review in papers and claim that the liberal scientists don't allow papers that dissent to get out
-they quote without context (such as emails between authors, talking about using someone's "trick to hide the data" when it was actually just a discussion of what to show in a magazine to streamline it/it was actually more accurate that way)
Panda's thumb (evolution) NOAA (climate) NCSE
Lawrence Krauss-
-I spaced out on this one, it was like physics geeking about Feynman, and some of his points were lame, like "not everyone has to be a stereotypical scientist- see? everyone can do it!" but his examples were like white dudes who sounded pretty typical to me, whatever. I also wasn't fond of the whole "something good happened... world war II! For Feynman anyway!" same with his referencing the atomic bomb that way.
I skipped out on Project Alpha, I already know the story
Jennifer Michael Hecht- Philosophy of Skepticism
-old philosophers were skepticals about everything... down to reality itself
-Carvaka in India said people couldn't have souls without a body, so there couldn't be any kind of afterlife (they didn't see anything leaving bodies, so)
-Buddhism is/was often non spiritual, mostly about relaxation and being at peace
-Kant had the acknowledged that even though there wasn't evidence for a god he'd believe it anyway
"I've seen this happen a lot" isn't the best kind of evidence, not adequate
-Maimonides "negative theology" you can't know god and he kind of sucks
-Agnostism has no philosphical background
-you can find a unicorn (animals with one horn) but not a pegasi (the wings would need to be too large)
-middle ages: Islamic skeptics
-early 20th century was better for atheism than right now
PZ Meyers- Skeptical look at aliens
-convergence: evolution into something similar across continents despite not being related
-our ancestors were limited to 4 limbs, so bipedalism is best to free up hands (vertibrates), but invertibrates always had more arms so this wasn't an issue
-bonyfish have cranial adaption to stretch their jaws wider to allow water inside/suck it in to get prey towards them rather than push it away with water
-eels have 2 jaws, second one holds food, the larger chew it
-basic chordate has 2 fins for swimming
-arthorpods always had a lot of limbs to spare and stayed on land
-torpedo shaped predadors may be best or perhaps squids: sensory array in midbody, no skeleton and have a propulsion + flapping system to push themselves forward
-starting materials matter for what creatures become. extinction is kind of a reset button, so in a way we have like 6 worlds on our planet (we've had 6 exinction events)
Pamela Gay - something about space and stuff
-at one point we're often told we can't become scientists because of math, ect, and it's not being taught
-science classes aren't a part of the no child left behind act
-US is average at science despite having a bit of wealth
-USA.gov = can tell them not to renew no child left behind
Future in Space panel- Neil DeGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Phil Plait
-government has to fund exploration first-> technology is made-> risks and benefits are known-> commercial companies begin to do it
-big NASA funding wasn't often for the sake of science, usually follows some kind of war
-50 years of NASA funding = the bailout cost
Neil deGrasse Tyson- keynote
-Pluto is a dwarf planet/ice belt object
-the US is scared of things like the number 13 and regular numbers
-gravity changes in planet movement is insignificant to affect it
-holiday inn has people who warm beds... apparently with their clothes on, which doesn't work
-ad "why light things fall faster than heavy"
-supermoon scare: "closer than it's ever been!" how much? Moon at it's smallest is 7.0, 7.5 med, 8.0 is large, supermoon is 8.0001!
-the court system doesn't want you to know about the lack of reliability in eyewitness testimony. or mg->g conversion rates
-if you ask people about intercession with a god 90% say they do, 60% with a Phd (can be used as a measure of independent thought), religious scientists 40%, science only brings it down 20%, but education brings it down 30%, it seems to matter more. Elite scientists 7% believers
-even the very educated believe, may be a brain thing
-religious philosophers are less than 1%
-bible in science: not just about church/state separation, it's about not having science illliterate teachers!
-evolution bothers them more than the big bang
-switzerland took the supercollider after we cancelled it
-China has an aerospace program and 3 gorge dam
-Russia wanted to deflect an asteroid
-Brazil aerospace program
-Europe prints scientists on its money
-Romania has polymer money that doesn't bend/wrinkle up
-Katrina wasn't the issue for destruction, the levees breaking were. We have problems with bridges, steam pipes
-Bush "our god named the stars"
-1 person's dogma can end progress for a very long time
That night I ate out with my friends, and later on went to Penn's Doughnut and bacon party. I was a bit less inspired with the party, it was too loud to talk to people and I didn't really get into the cover songs, and the food made me kind of ill (I didn't eat bacon, of course).
Saturday
Ethics of paranormal investigation- Joe Nickell, Karen Stollznow, Ben Radford, James Randi, Banachek, Julia Galef
-it was like the first thing of the morning at 8 AM, I didn't really get into it. I think it was mostly about having respect for people when you go debunk their stuff
Sadie Crabtree- Skepticism advocacy
-reason is hard to start off with for people
-you need a goal, who do we need to talk to, what do we want them to do, what values, belief obstacles, what's the message and by who?
who: supporters, firm opposition, people in the middle. If you're choosing you should pick the middle.
how: focus on behaviors rather than values. It's easier to go for what they care about and communicate to that. Their reasons for caring on a basic level may not be the reasons you think are important. If you can get them to do a certain behavior it can lead them to cognitive dissonance which makes it harder for them to keep the same beliefs they had/
-examples of how skepticism can help them, if nothing else they can feel smarter than other people
-focus on shared values: honesty, fairness, protecting others, wanting to feel smart/respected, right, confident, not being taken advantage of or cheated
-they need to feel in control, it's scary to change, they need a positive view presented to them
-don't make them feel stupid
-encourage them not to be narrowminded, but also don't accept everything
-people match patterns quickly and make stereotypes "frames" we're used to (heuristics)
-don't put your message in the wrong frame or people will dismiss it immediately
-there's a distrust of corporate science/scientists who act better than them, you have to get away from that
-if you seem to have an interest in an agenda there will be less trust
-focus on common interests and similarities
-what we say about people relfects on us (eliteism)
-need to know how to present yourself, it doesn't matter who you -reall-y are, only the perception they take of you
-don't attack people, negative campaigns have costs and you need to determine if the benefits outweigh them
-use words that will get through to them
-be consistent, think about what words mean to the public vs other skeptics
-"critical thinking" judgmental, "you're thinking wrong right now!"
-"educate" kind of insulting, makes people passive
-vaccination-> immunity/innoculation, it's kind of a scary word as it is
nonsense-> "things found to be false"
"here to educate you about the nonsense here" -> "here to protect you from being taken advantage of" -> "encourage critical thinking" -> "inspire investigative truth seeking spirit" (that leads to elimating diseases/ect)
-persuation can be slow so it should be taken 1 step at a time with the persuadable
Getting things done- Elyse Anders, Richard Saunders, Jennifer McCreight, Justin Trottier, Maria Walters, Amy Roth
Didn't enjoy this panel. I found the moderator's tone of voice to be kind of patronizing and most of the content was them advertising what they've already done. The bit about getting power bands off the market was cool though.
Elizabeth Loftus- Manufacturing memories
-75-80% of false accusations are from false memory
-there's no credible evidence of memory burial
-in 3 interviews 1/4 of participants took the memory on
"fallen in punch bowl at a wedding" 1/4
"victim of animal atk/house injury" fully taken 26%, partial 30%
-doctored photos -> 1/2 took them on (Slate, ministry of truth)
-will add sensory details about things in false memories
-planted implausible memories as well (things that physically could not happen)
-alien abduction believers were as emotional about false memories as they were about real, emotional response is no measure of a memories accuracy
-checked fake vs true memory brain response, they were using similar brain signals
-the highly intelligent are somewhat less succeptible
Richard Wiseman- Paranormality
Pretty much just entertainment, a lot of pareidola going on and pattern matching. It was funny though I'd seen much of it previously.
Carol Tavris
-at the time she grew up women were barely allowed to do anything, but the concept of PMS didn't exist at least!
-opposition is invested in what they already believe, they don't have to listen to you
-the catharsis movement was found to be unsupported by evidence, in fact it forms habits that can be harmful in cases when there are no consequences for expressing it
-cognitive dissonance can be a motivation to change beliefs
-when there is high investment in a belief cognitive dissonance will lead to a justification effect
-ex: students with low grades were given a course in self help, at the end they rated the program as helping them, but their grades actually did not improve
-the more defining a person's belief is the harder it will be for them to accept dissonance about it
-smart people that do things wrong are even better at justification
-ex: 2 students start with similar attitudes on cheating, more or less in the middle (one considers it not a good thing, the other considers it not so bad). They're both doing badly in class, but on the final exam they end up sitting near a student who does well in the class and they can see their test. One student chooses to cheat, the other resists. The student who cheats will reconcile it later as "cheating is okay sometimes" and the other one will feel more strongly about never cheating. As this pattern continues they will get more and more polarized about their feelings towards cheating
-so if you get people into cognitive dissonance, do it in a way that wont make people retreat back to their beliefs more strongly. Such as making them feel stupid
-when people make mistakes we need to keep them separate from our dissonance, forgive our allies and go after our enemies
-we can't change the world but we can change big pieces of it
Bill Nye- Our Place in Space
-I've heard his speech before so I more or less didn't take notes on it
-we need to do more with less rather than doing less (such as in the case of driving, it's hard for people to stop driving in itself, but we should make it so driving is less harmful for the environment)
-we're a tiny spec on a tiny spec, but we can still fathom that with our tiny brains, which is kind of amazing
Bill Nye is pretty awesome, though. Here's the notes I have from science symposium (I sadly fell asleep during his presentation somehow)
-science education gives people the tools to debate anything
-middle school is like the cutoff for science interest/education on average in regards to getting through to kids
-basic idea is to help people understand their place in the world, we have to let go of wanting to argue or getting mad when trying to get your point across
-fulltime scientists do well in algebra on average (Drescher says this has a lot to do with the concept of "variable" since algebra is the first time it's introduced. The statement he makes about this was pretty controversial to the audience, but I think they have to keep in mind that it was from research and in science we only measure the -average- of people, so just because you did crap in algebra isn't a death sentence for science, I'm an example of that).
Richard Dawkins- Magic of Reality
-3 types of magic: fairy tales (no one really believes them), illusionists, reality
-magic can't happen due to the complexity of evolution, it always goes towards complexity
-illusionists show us how vulnerable we are to trickery
(Dawkins spent like 20 minutes uh... reading the chapter titles of his new book to us, no one really cares about you "previewing" your book dude, if you're gonna try to sell it just talk about what's in it)
-likelihood of a physical visit of aliens is pretty low
-but it's unlikely we're alone due to sheer number of planets
-we only know of Darwinian life, that works towards improving itself
-tools are made the same way people are, constantly being improved
-alien life is likely the same theory= what it explains/assumptions required to do so, Darwinian evolution doesn't take much assumptions other than heredity
-the only viable alternative is probably Lamarck's use/disuse theory, but even if traits got inhereted it cant account for evolution
-DNA has some power over whether it gets replicated, carbon = long chains needed for life, protein in particular
-cell uses like tons of DNA, specifically by what enzyme is added, not whats already in the DNA itself, proteins do this
-if right DNA is found it'll have the needed reaction -> behavior ->embriology
-needs to have digital genetics rather than analog, which are accurate with room for mistakes
-contenent splits are similar to having restarted the world several times, a lot of natural selection causing similar qualities/animals: sugar glyder (marsupial) vs flying squirrel (rodent)
-similar eye evolutions (it's come about 40+ times independently)
-sonar has come about 4 times
-there's eager and reluctant paths for nature
-flight 4x. jet propulsion (squid + scallops)
-wheels are hard to make
-things are organized and complex, improbable to be instant
Honestly Dawkins was boring as all hell. Some of what I wrote doesn't even make sense to me. It wasn't super clear how a lot of it tied into alien life which is what he was really supposed to be doing. I've heard he's a great writer but nothing special as a speaker.
Sunday
Paper presentations. I don't know anyone's names except for Dylan's.
1. Skepticism in the media
-skeptics tend to be reactive, not really there to explain things. They also don't make themselves available to reporters, who have to seek them out
-skeptics need to become a part of the main story, not afterthoughts or the notes on the subjects
-"protecting people from misinformation" is our group purpose
-try to make something come off as a new angle for a story, that's appealing to news organizations
(his website is younghipandconservative.com which made the audience titter a little bit, he admitted he's more libertarian but he thought this sounded more attention grabbing)
2. Guerilla skepticism- wiki
-changing content into well cited/written ones, people often go to wiki for neutral info, they aren't going to look someone up because they think they're a fraud
-info on important skeptics are somewhat lacking on wiki at the moment
3. Dylan- Hear and they will listen
-negative effect will motivate people to resist your message. Decision pyramid -> justification-> opinion A or justification-> opinion B
-persuasion depends on how core the belief is
-empathy will increase receptivity of changes to the self and others
-communication is seldom perfect since it has to go through a filter of bias
need: -object language, thesis, willingness to accept something
-state your position, find common ground-> ask them their reasons-> rephrase what they said-> change to something that fits with your personal view->thesis: I think there is __, but ___, however ___ (I accept it, I get it, but I don't agree)
-you repeat this cycle with both sides, reducing the gap caused by differing opinions
-have to genuinely try to understand others, cooperation is required which is hard when people are emotional
->hear so they will listen
4. I think her name was Ashley, and she talked about using emotion in messages
-her point was that you need to express emotion to get people to care about what you're talking about... her examples were lacking
-she used a failed anti-prop 8 advertisement in which two women discussed whether it was fair without even stating what it was about. She showed a successful pro prop 8 advert with a small girl saying she learned she could "marry a princess" and it turned into a "fear for the children" ad (fearmongering).
-basically her point was that using emotions is why prop 8 passed. But honestly it failed hard, there could've been other things in that commercial that spoke to people, if for no other reason than it had a child in it and just appealed to people's concerns about children, not so much emotions. Just making some fullon emotional statement wont necessarily always make your point communicated better. (Aside, there were other ways people campaigned, it wasn't due to just 2 commercials, come on now).
Fearmongering is also not a good solution to me, just trying to scare our audience is like the opposite of our goal. We don't want blind obedience to our cause, we want to make people -think- about what we have to say. I also didn't like some of her statements (that didn't follow at all!) that sometimes you had to "not stop, and be a dick" to get people to listen. Um, NO. Aside, her "conclusion" about the Dawkins and Rebecca thing was TOTALLY unrelated, she basically said "emotions matter and we normally ignore them, so we should make sure to pay attention to each other's feelings and not discount them!" Which I'm all behind there, but your argument DID NOT FOLLOW, OMG.
-if she'd been smart she would've made the argument that we need to find what people care about and speak to that...
Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik- Slights of mind, neuroscience
-artists were the ones to find illusions in their art
-inattentional blindness, filter will keep us from noticing a lot
I kinda spaced out, it's just neuro-cog stuff I knew already
Sara Mayhew- Secular Storytelling
-manga readers (probably the US...) are 70% female. Seems really high to me, but I guess guys watch anime more here?
-while we love a lot of fantasy stories, some of them have some not so skeptical/positive messages. LOTR: the only sort of technology, the rings, pretty much turned people evil. Star wars: inborn powers, you tended to be evil or good and not much to be done about it
-she has a manga, legend of Ztarr
Although it wasn't the most substantive presentation, she didn't overstep her expertise, she kind of explained how connecting emotionally with characters in a story can be a very effective way of getting people to care about science/skepticism. I agree with this. I only didn't like how long she spent explaining anime character expressions as "symbolic" because not all anime even uses chibi or exaggerations. (From the one chapter I read of her new manga I'm also not super impressed but it's early. It's relying too much on cliches and the art style/designs don't interest me).
Communicating Skepticism- PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Carol Tavris, Jamy Ian Swiss, Sadie Crabtree
-there was a debate over whether we should be reactive to another sides tactics. I don't think so, I think you should follow what science tells you in regards to communication, maybe change tactics for defense but you don't have to attack your opponents just because they attacked you
-you can be pleasant while clear and strong in it, you don't have to sacrifice your message
-(Tavris) reactions are often situational, leave dogma out of it, skepticism is a tool, not a religion. Need to set aside your views for the sake of a goal or what you practice
-need to show that the scientific method is cool
-media likes to show "both sides", which gets people's attention.
-one person: is crazy, 2: a conspiracy, 3: a movement
-need to make sure to target the right thing before you start
(some of the guys were arguing over not liking to be told not to do something, even though science argues with them, it was kinda lame. They wanted their "style" respected, or their personal selves).
-don't forget to mention why something is important or cool
-science tends to be taught backwards, the method is important first
Desiree Schell- what skepticism can learn from social movements
-1023 group did the public homeopathic overdose (in the UK)
-social movements tend to expand on their issues over time as the group gets more diverse.
-tactical diversity for different situations, your audience matters
-different tactics for different messages, but this can be confusing to your audience to understand
-"overtuned window" radicals drag the window of whats moderate to the more extremes
-needs assessable group and the militant ones
-need to keep in mind: objectives-> audience-> message -> tactic
-Rosa Parks thing was planned, which lead to a boycott of buses that was effective because black people were their main patrons
-the start of birth control came from people starting a clinic
Steven Novella- Mental Illness Denial
-subjectivity doesn't make an illness false
-everyone thinks the other side is a "believe" and that they're the reasonable skeptic
-denial features: motivated reasoning, moving goalpost, categorical dismissal of evidence, confused world knowledge, argument from semantics, selective evidence use
-semantics use syllogisms/logic
-diseases always have pathophysiology
-disorder: deficient/dysfunctional lack of efficiency in brain
-dyslexia: low end of bell curve on reading, which is detrimental in literate culture, theres no pathology, its just there
-outside range of normal doesn't mean abnormal, it tends to need to cause harm to people
-not everything is on a bell curve, there's bimodal curves in medicine
-"no one believes depression is a deficiency of prozac" even though the commercials make it seem that way
Diversity in Skepticism- Greta Christina, DJ Grothe, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey, Hemant Mehta, Desiree Schell
-people don't feel like skepticism is about them personally
There was a big debate about whether skepticism should -do- things about social issues rather than just discussing them or doing more than pushing skeptical thinking. On one side there was kind of an argument from tradition and dillution of message. The other was that we're keeping ourselves male and white if we keep doing the same subjects and don't branch. There was also an assertion that if we diversify our topics we may lose what we have or the new people wont care about what skepticism is once we get back on the topic. Debbie seemed to fall somewhere in the middle, that skepticism needs to care about people more and be a bit more in touch, but skepticism also needs to focus mostly on giving people the tools to make decisions, not telling people how to feel about certain issues.
Jennifer Ouellette - Universe through the looking glass
-19th century with telescopes had more space knowledge-> people got obsessed with other worlds
-some of the first science fiction in 1865, "A trip to the moon" (movie)
Hers was mostly to entertain, showing video clips of stuff. (Tennant is the lamest doctor though, come on!)
Sean Faircloth- Attack of the theocrats
-more theocrats than ever in the US, politicians support religion now
-religions schools with more leeway for physical punishment
-we need to go past symbolism and basic opposition and get more human efforts/go bigger
-advocacy
-human stories on issues
-more lobbying
-focus message
-broaden/deepen base
-social networking
-preach to the unconverted
-nontheist electioneering
-openly nontheist politicians, 10 by 2020
-strengthen coalition, unite while disagreeing
-innovation and internships
Friday
Michael Shermer- The Believing Brain
-people naturally listen to everything they're told in case it's true, it's evolutionary to be overly cautious
-if a conspiracy seems really big/general, it's probably not true. they tend to be pretty narrow in scope- not world domination
(I've heard this talk before at science symposium, and this new book just sounds like an updated "Why People Believe Weird Things", plus I'm a psych major so I know a lot of this already. Shermer's talks are also kinda boring, and it was way too early to pay attention anyway!)
Skepticism on TV panel: Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Joe Nickell, Adam Savage, James Randi
-if on TV, make it clear early that something is untrue, you can't control TV editing. Don't skip the process of testing a claim, either, give people the tools to figure it out in the future
-give your points clearly quickly, they can't edit that
Eugenie Scott- Denialism of Climate Change and Evolution
there are 3 major similarities between climate change and evolution denial arguments:
Evolution
1. evolution is bad science
2. the dichotomy: you can only have evolution or religion, you can't have both
3. it's only fair to teach both
Climate change
1. weak science support
2. "anticapitalist, liberals just want to control us!"
3. unfair to impose fixes for anything until everyone agrees it exists!
-both find people to dissent the science, even if those people don't have expertise on the subject, such as degrees in "general science" (getting many signatures from them)
-people with BAs, 30% of scientists isn't that many, it's like 3% of the field
-the most effective tactic they have with this is claiming evidence is insufficient/lacking, or finding a single anomaly
-often say it's cooler after a certain point in time, if you go back a year or since 2008 it increases. They tend to show the one time ice levels weren't going down
-spread by and to the public, not as science. There's fake grass roots organizations with a lot of money behind them.
-critical of peer review in papers and claim that the liberal scientists don't allow papers that dissent to get out
-they quote without context (such as emails between authors, talking about using someone's "trick to hide the data" when it was actually just a discussion of what to show in a magazine to streamline it/it was actually more accurate that way)
Panda's thumb (evolution) NOAA (climate) NCSE
Lawrence Krauss-
-I spaced out on this one, it was like physics geeking about Feynman, and some of his points were lame, like "not everyone has to be a stereotypical scientist- see? everyone can do it!" but his examples were like white dudes who sounded pretty typical to me, whatever. I also wasn't fond of the whole "something good happened... world war II! For Feynman anyway!" same with his referencing the atomic bomb that way.
I skipped out on Project Alpha, I already know the story
Jennifer Michael Hecht- Philosophy of Skepticism
-old philosophers were skepticals about everything... down to reality itself
-Carvaka in India said people couldn't have souls without a body, so there couldn't be any kind of afterlife (they didn't see anything leaving bodies, so)
-Buddhism is/was often non spiritual, mostly about relaxation and being at peace
-Kant had the acknowledged that even though there wasn't evidence for a god he'd believe it anyway
"I've seen this happen a lot" isn't the best kind of evidence, not adequate
-Maimonides "negative theology" you can't know god and he kind of sucks
-Agnostism has no philosphical background
-you can find a unicorn (animals with one horn) but not a pegasi (the wings would need to be too large)
-middle ages: Islamic skeptics
-early 20th century was better for atheism than right now
PZ Meyers- Skeptical look at aliens
-convergence: evolution into something similar across continents despite not being related
-our ancestors were limited to 4 limbs, so bipedalism is best to free up hands (vertibrates), but invertibrates always had more arms so this wasn't an issue
-bonyfish have cranial adaption to stretch their jaws wider to allow water inside/suck it in to get prey towards them rather than push it away with water
-eels have 2 jaws, second one holds food, the larger chew it
-basic chordate has 2 fins for swimming
-arthorpods always had a lot of limbs to spare and stayed on land
-torpedo shaped predadors may be best or perhaps squids: sensory array in midbody, no skeleton and have a propulsion + flapping system to push themselves forward
-starting materials matter for what creatures become. extinction is kind of a reset button, so in a way we have like 6 worlds on our planet (we've had 6 exinction events)
Pamela Gay - something about space and stuff
-at one point we're often told we can't become scientists because of math, ect, and it's not being taught
-science classes aren't a part of the no child left behind act
-US is average at science despite having a bit of wealth
-USA.gov = can tell them not to renew no child left behind
Future in Space panel- Neil DeGrass Tyson, Bill Nye, Pamela Gay, Lawrence Krauss, Phil Plait
-government has to fund exploration first-> technology is made-> risks and benefits are known-> commercial companies begin to do it
-big NASA funding wasn't often for the sake of science, usually follows some kind of war
-50 years of NASA funding = the bailout cost
Neil deGrasse Tyson- keynote
-Pluto is a dwarf planet/ice belt object
-the US is scared of things like the number 13 and regular numbers
-gravity changes in planet movement is insignificant to affect it
-holiday inn has people who warm beds... apparently with their clothes on, which doesn't work
-ad "why light things fall faster than heavy"
-supermoon scare: "closer than it's ever been!" how much? Moon at it's smallest is 7.0, 7.5 med, 8.0 is large, supermoon is 8.0001!
-the court system doesn't want you to know about the lack of reliability in eyewitness testimony. or mg->g conversion rates
-if you ask people about intercession with a god 90% say they do, 60% with a Phd (can be used as a measure of independent thought), religious scientists 40%, science only brings it down 20%, but education brings it down 30%, it seems to matter more. Elite scientists 7% believers
-even the very educated believe, may be a brain thing
-religious philosophers are less than 1%
-bible in science: not just about church/state separation, it's about not having science illliterate teachers!
-evolution bothers them more than the big bang
-switzerland took the supercollider after we cancelled it
-China has an aerospace program and 3 gorge dam
-Russia wanted to deflect an asteroid
-Brazil aerospace program
-Europe prints scientists on its money
-Romania has polymer money that doesn't bend/wrinkle up
-Katrina wasn't the issue for destruction, the levees breaking were. We have problems with bridges, steam pipes
-Bush "our god named the stars"
-1 person's dogma can end progress for a very long time
That night I ate out with my friends, and later on went to Penn's Doughnut and bacon party. I was a bit less inspired with the party, it was too loud to talk to people and I didn't really get into the cover songs, and the food made me kind of ill (I didn't eat bacon, of course).
Saturday
Ethics of paranormal investigation- Joe Nickell, Karen Stollznow, Ben Radford, James Randi, Banachek, Julia Galef
-it was like the first thing of the morning at 8 AM, I didn't really get into it. I think it was mostly about having respect for people when you go debunk their stuff
Sadie Crabtree- Skepticism advocacy
-reason is hard to start off with for people
-you need a goal, who do we need to talk to, what do we want them to do, what values, belief obstacles, what's the message and by who?
who: supporters, firm opposition, people in the middle. If you're choosing you should pick the middle.
how: focus on behaviors rather than values. It's easier to go for what they care about and communicate to that. Their reasons for caring on a basic level may not be the reasons you think are important. If you can get them to do a certain behavior it can lead them to cognitive dissonance which makes it harder for them to keep the same beliefs they had/
-examples of how skepticism can help them, if nothing else they can feel smarter than other people
-focus on shared values: honesty, fairness, protecting others, wanting to feel smart/respected, right, confident, not being taken advantage of or cheated
-they need to feel in control, it's scary to change, they need a positive view presented to them
-don't make them feel stupid
-encourage them not to be narrowminded, but also don't accept everything
-people match patterns quickly and make stereotypes "frames" we're used to (heuristics)
-don't put your message in the wrong frame or people will dismiss it immediately
-there's a distrust of corporate science/scientists who act better than them, you have to get away from that
-if you seem to have an interest in an agenda there will be less trust
-focus on common interests and similarities
-what we say about people relfects on us (eliteism)
-need to know how to present yourself, it doesn't matter who you -reall-y are, only the perception they take of you
-don't attack people, negative campaigns have costs and you need to determine if the benefits outweigh them
-use words that will get through to them
-be consistent, think about what words mean to the public vs other skeptics
-"critical thinking" judgmental, "you're thinking wrong right now!"
-"educate" kind of insulting, makes people passive
-vaccination-> immunity/innoculation, it's kind of a scary word as it is
nonsense-> "things found to be false"
"here to educate you about the nonsense here" -> "here to protect you from being taken advantage of" -> "encourage critical thinking" -> "inspire investigative truth seeking spirit" (that leads to elimating diseases/ect)
-persuation can be slow so it should be taken 1 step at a time with the persuadable
Getting things done- Elyse Anders, Richard Saunders, Jennifer McCreight, Justin Trottier, Maria Walters, Amy Roth
Didn't enjoy this panel. I found the moderator's tone of voice to be kind of patronizing and most of the content was them advertising what they've already done. The bit about getting power bands off the market was cool though.
Elizabeth Loftus- Manufacturing memories
-75-80% of false accusations are from false memory
-there's no credible evidence of memory burial
-in 3 interviews 1/4 of participants took the memory on
"fallen in punch bowl at a wedding" 1/4
"victim of animal atk/house injury" fully taken 26%, partial 30%
-doctored photos -> 1/2 took them on (Slate, ministry of truth)
-will add sensory details about things in false memories
-planted implausible memories as well (things that physically could not happen)
-alien abduction believers were as emotional about false memories as they were about real, emotional response is no measure of a memories accuracy
-checked fake vs true memory brain response, they were using similar brain signals
-the highly intelligent are somewhat less succeptible
Richard Wiseman- Paranormality
Pretty much just entertainment, a lot of pareidola going on and pattern matching. It was funny though I'd seen much of it previously.
Carol Tavris
-at the time she grew up women were barely allowed to do anything, but the concept of PMS didn't exist at least!
-opposition is invested in what they already believe, they don't have to listen to you
-the catharsis movement was found to be unsupported by evidence, in fact it forms habits that can be harmful in cases when there are no consequences for expressing it
-cognitive dissonance can be a motivation to change beliefs
-when there is high investment in a belief cognitive dissonance will lead to a justification effect
-ex: students with low grades were given a course in self help, at the end they rated the program as helping them, but their grades actually did not improve
-the more defining a person's belief is the harder it will be for them to accept dissonance about it
-smart people that do things wrong are even better at justification
-ex: 2 students start with similar attitudes on cheating, more or less in the middle (one considers it not a good thing, the other considers it not so bad). They're both doing badly in class, but on the final exam they end up sitting near a student who does well in the class and they can see their test. One student chooses to cheat, the other resists. The student who cheats will reconcile it later as "cheating is okay sometimes" and the other one will feel more strongly about never cheating. As this pattern continues they will get more and more polarized about their feelings towards cheating
-so if you get people into cognitive dissonance, do it in a way that wont make people retreat back to their beliefs more strongly. Such as making them feel stupid
-when people make mistakes we need to keep them separate from our dissonance, forgive our allies and go after our enemies
-we can't change the world but we can change big pieces of it
Bill Nye- Our Place in Space
-I've heard his speech before so I more or less didn't take notes on it
-we need to do more with less rather than doing less (such as in the case of driving, it's hard for people to stop driving in itself, but we should make it so driving is less harmful for the environment)
-we're a tiny spec on a tiny spec, but we can still fathom that with our tiny brains, which is kind of amazing
Bill Nye is pretty awesome, though. Here's the notes I have from science symposium (I sadly fell asleep during his presentation somehow)
-science education gives people the tools to debate anything
-middle school is like the cutoff for science interest/education on average in regards to getting through to kids
-basic idea is to help people understand their place in the world, we have to let go of wanting to argue or getting mad when trying to get your point across
-fulltime scientists do well in algebra on average (Drescher says this has a lot to do with the concept of "variable" since algebra is the first time it's introduced. The statement he makes about this was pretty controversial to the audience, but I think they have to keep in mind that it was from research and in science we only measure the -average- of people, so just because you did crap in algebra isn't a death sentence for science, I'm an example of that).
Richard Dawkins- Magic of Reality
-3 types of magic: fairy tales (no one really believes them), illusionists, reality
-magic can't happen due to the complexity of evolution, it always goes towards complexity
-illusionists show us how vulnerable we are to trickery
(Dawkins spent like 20 minutes uh... reading the chapter titles of his new book to us, no one really cares about you "previewing" your book dude, if you're gonna try to sell it just talk about what's in it)
-likelihood of a physical visit of aliens is pretty low
-but it's unlikely we're alone due to sheer number of planets
-we only know of Darwinian life, that works towards improving itself
-tools are made the same way people are, constantly being improved
-alien life is likely the same theory= what it explains/assumptions required to do so, Darwinian evolution doesn't take much assumptions other than heredity
-the only viable alternative is probably Lamarck's use/disuse theory, but even if traits got inhereted it cant account for evolution
-DNA has some power over whether it gets replicated, carbon = long chains needed for life, protein in particular
-cell uses like tons of DNA, specifically by what enzyme is added, not whats already in the DNA itself, proteins do this
-if right DNA is found it'll have the needed reaction -> behavior ->embriology
-needs to have digital genetics rather than analog, which are accurate with room for mistakes
-contenent splits are similar to having restarted the world several times, a lot of natural selection causing similar qualities/animals: sugar glyder (marsupial) vs flying squirrel (rodent)
-similar eye evolutions (it's come about 40+ times independently)
-sonar has come about 4 times
-there's eager and reluctant paths for nature
-flight 4x. jet propulsion (squid + scallops)
-wheels are hard to make
-things are organized and complex, improbable to be instant
Honestly Dawkins was boring as all hell. Some of what I wrote doesn't even make sense to me. It wasn't super clear how a lot of it tied into alien life which is what he was really supposed to be doing. I've heard he's a great writer but nothing special as a speaker.
Sunday
Paper presentations. I don't know anyone's names except for Dylan's.
1. Skepticism in the media
-skeptics tend to be reactive, not really there to explain things. They also don't make themselves available to reporters, who have to seek them out
-skeptics need to become a part of the main story, not afterthoughts or the notes on the subjects
-"protecting people from misinformation" is our group purpose
-try to make something come off as a new angle for a story, that's appealing to news organizations
(his website is younghipandconservative.com which made the audience titter a little bit, he admitted he's more libertarian but he thought this sounded more attention grabbing)
2. Guerilla skepticism- wiki
-changing content into well cited/written ones, people often go to wiki for neutral info, they aren't going to look someone up because they think they're a fraud
-info on important skeptics are somewhat lacking on wiki at the moment
3. Dylan- Hear and they will listen
-negative effect will motivate people to resist your message. Decision pyramid -> justification-> opinion A or justification-> opinion B
-persuasion depends on how core the belief is
-empathy will increase receptivity of changes to the self and others
-communication is seldom perfect since it has to go through a filter of bias
need: -object language, thesis, willingness to accept something
-state your position, find common ground-> ask them their reasons-> rephrase what they said-> change to something that fits with your personal view->thesis: I think there is __, but ___, however ___ (I accept it, I get it, but I don't agree)
-you repeat this cycle with both sides, reducing the gap caused by differing opinions
-have to genuinely try to understand others, cooperation is required which is hard when people are emotional
->hear so they will listen
4. I think her name was Ashley, and she talked about using emotion in messages
-her point was that you need to express emotion to get people to care about what you're talking about... her examples were lacking
-she used a failed anti-prop 8 advertisement in which two women discussed whether it was fair without even stating what it was about. She showed a successful pro prop 8 advert with a small girl saying she learned she could "marry a princess" and it turned into a "fear for the children" ad (fearmongering).
-basically her point was that using emotions is why prop 8 passed. But honestly it failed hard, there could've been other things in that commercial that spoke to people, if for no other reason than it had a child in it and just appealed to people's concerns about children, not so much emotions. Just making some fullon emotional statement wont necessarily always make your point communicated better. (Aside, there were other ways people campaigned, it wasn't due to just 2 commercials, come on now).
Fearmongering is also not a good solution to me, just trying to scare our audience is like the opposite of our goal. We don't want blind obedience to our cause, we want to make people -think- about what we have to say. I also didn't like some of her statements (that didn't follow at all!) that sometimes you had to "not stop, and be a dick" to get people to listen. Um, NO. Aside, her "conclusion" about the Dawkins and Rebecca thing was TOTALLY unrelated, she basically said "emotions matter and we normally ignore them, so we should make sure to pay attention to each other's feelings and not discount them!" Which I'm all behind there, but your argument DID NOT FOLLOW, OMG.
-if she'd been smart she would've made the argument that we need to find what people care about and speak to that...
Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik- Slights of mind, neuroscience
-artists were the ones to find illusions in their art
-inattentional blindness, filter will keep us from noticing a lot
I kinda spaced out, it's just neuro-cog stuff I knew already
Sara Mayhew- Secular Storytelling
-manga readers (probably the US...) are 70% female. Seems really high to me, but I guess guys watch anime more here?
-while we love a lot of fantasy stories, some of them have some not so skeptical/positive messages. LOTR: the only sort of technology, the rings, pretty much turned people evil. Star wars: inborn powers, you tended to be evil or good and not much to be done about it
-she has a manga, legend of Ztarr
Although it wasn't the most substantive presentation, she didn't overstep her expertise, she kind of explained how connecting emotionally with characters in a story can be a very effective way of getting people to care about science/skepticism. I agree with this. I only didn't like how long she spent explaining anime character expressions as "symbolic" because not all anime even uses chibi or exaggerations. (From the one chapter I read of her new manga I'm also not super impressed but it's early. It's relying too much on cliches and the art style/designs don't interest me).
Communicating Skepticism- PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Carol Tavris, Jamy Ian Swiss, Sadie Crabtree
-there was a debate over whether we should be reactive to another sides tactics. I don't think so, I think you should follow what science tells you in regards to communication, maybe change tactics for defense but you don't have to attack your opponents just because they attacked you
-you can be pleasant while clear and strong in it, you don't have to sacrifice your message
-(Tavris) reactions are often situational, leave dogma out of it, skepticism is a tool, not a religion. Need to set aside your views for the sake of a goal or what you practice
-need to show that the scientific method is cool
-media likes to show "both sides", which gets people's attention.
-one person: is crazy, 2: a conspiracy, 3: a movement
-need to make sure to target the right thing before you start
(some of the guys were arguing over not liking to be told not to do something, even though science argues with them, it was kinda lame. They wanted their "style" respected, or their personal selves).
-don't forget to mention why something is important or cool
-science tends to be taught backwards, the method is important first
Desiree Schell- what skepticism can learn from social movements
-1023 group did the public homeopathic overdose (in the UK)
-social movements tend to expand on their issues over time as the group gets more diverse.
-tactical diversity for different situations, your audience matters
-different tactics for different messages, but this can be confusing to your audience to understand
-"overtuned window" radicals drag the window of whats moderate to the more extremes
-needs assessable group and the militant ones
-need to keep in mind: objectives-> audience-> message -> tactic
-Rosa Parks thing was planned, which lead to a boycott of buses that was effective because black people were their main patrons
-the start of birth control came from people starting a clinic
Steven Novella- Mental Illness Denial
-subjectivity doesn't make an illness false
-everyone thinks the other side is a "believe" and that they're the reasonable skeptic
-denial features: motivated reasoning, moving goalpost, categorical dismissal of evidence, confused world knowledge, argument from semantics, selective evidence use
-semantics use syllogisms/logic
-diseases always have pathophysiology
-disorder: deficient/dysfunctional lack of efficiency in brain
-dyslexia: low end of bell curve on reading, which is detrimental in literate culture, theres no pathology, its just there
-outside range of normal doesn't mean abnormal, it tends to need to cause harm to people
-not everything is on a bell curve, there's bimodal curves in medicine
-"no one believes depression is a deficiency of prozac" even though the commercials make it seem that way
Diversity in Skepticism- Greta Christina, DJ Grothe, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey, Hemant Mehta, Desiree Schell
-people don't feel like skepticism is about them personally
There was a big debate about whether skepticism should -do- things about social issues rather than just discussing them or doing more than pushing skeptical thinking. On one side there was kind of an argument from tradition and dillution of message. The other was that we're keeping ourselves male and white if we keep doing the same subjects and don't branch. There was also an assertion that if we diversify our topics we may lose what we have or the new people wont care about what skepticism is once we get back on the topic. Debbie seemed to fall somewhere in the middle, that skepticism needs to care about people more and be a bit more in touch, but skepticism also needs to focus mostly on giving people the tools to make decisions, not telling people how to feel about certain issues.
Jennifer Ouellette - Universe through the looking glass
-19th century with telescopes had more space knowledge-> people got obsessed with other worlds
-some of the first science fiction in 1865, "A trip to the moon" (movie)
Hers was mostly to entertain, showing video clips of stuff. (Tennant is the lamest doctor though, come on!)
Sean Faircloth- Attack of the theocrats
-more theocrats than ever in the US, politicians support religion now
-religions schools with more leeway for physical punishment
-we need to go past symbolism and basic opposition and get more human efforts/go bigger
-advocacy
-human stories on issues
-more lobbying
-focus message
-broaden/deepen base
-social networking
-preach to the unconverted
-nontheist electioneering
-openly nontheist politicians, 10 by 2020
-strengthen coalition, unite while disagreeing
-innovation and internships