Skepticamp Recap
I had a heckuva time at Skepticamp Atlanta, I think. There was, of course, a wide variety of topics and, of course, a wide variety of quality and authority. I won't pick on individuals because people were often presenting on topics necessarily out of their area of expertise. A few observations:
1. Regarding the guy with the swords and awful pants: He put forward the idea that the scientia nobilis, which was based on principia, was the "noble science." This is a mistranslation, of course, of the word "scientia." Scientia is "field of knowledge," the word from which science is derived. Natural science would have referred originally to the knowledge you could have eked out of nature, for instance, and it seems to me that the term has been shortened. So, it's a sort of false cognate. One person put forward the idea that since the sources he was talking about were really sort of late in the game, at about the time that gunpowder was being used, that the sort of martial arts he was talking about were becoming obsolete on the battlefield, and that nobilis, in that case, would have referred to the nobility...that is, "something the nobility would have studied" for largely ceremonial reasons.
2. Vaccines do not inject antibodies. They provoke an immune response that leaves you with antibodies.
3. The "simple" Venn diagram at the end is entirely inadequate and I hope it does not make it into the Dragon*Con handout, as was threatened. It described the notion of skepticism as being the intersection of science education and consumer protection. I mean, just look at the presentation on dinosaurs were dragons, with special reference to Beowulf. The person who gave that presentation has, like, no interest in science education, did not frame it as science education, yet was able to construct a reasoned argument using evidence. Science is just one area of knowledge (scientia) where empirical evidence is used. Let's not forget that.
HJ
Seed Newsvine
21 comments:
@ DM
Well, I'm not sure I understood that entire spittle flecked speech, but I wish to commend your use of citations. Well done, you're learning.
---------------------
Back to the actual blog post. I used to be an engineer, but I'm now back at University doing an undergrad Classics degree. I think any skill set that teaches you to cite references and present evidence helps you in all walks of life. The engineering background certainly helped me to frame arguments and present a case.
Though that doesn't always apply, some of the wackiest wackjobs out there are Doctors/Engineers who form conclusions first and then look for evidence to support their case.
@ HJ
Yep, any open event will attract a diverse array of speakers, some of whom are reaching too far and others who are just plain nutty.
Though I'm not always successful, I encourage organizers to keep their events interactive, where speakers routinely take questions during their talks. During the time I tuned into ATL's event, I saw mostly questions reserved until the end of talks.
That's a recipe for frustration, IMO, as misinformation goes unanswered. By the time Q&A comes around the damage has already been done.
There is value in the traditional lecture format (it scales nicely, for example) but it's a poor fit for SkeptiCamp events.
@ Akheloios
Yep, an MD or PhD does not automatically grant one expertise, particularly beyond the field which they studied.
Great feedback, thanks!
On the Venn diagram, I think the question was how to explain skepticism in broad terms although I certainly agree that skepticism may be more than the intersection between science education and consumer protection, the diagram is a great way to explain it at a high level.
Also, even if something (like the Beowulf presentation - one of my favorites) isn't framed officially as science education, it really does contribute to science education because we use science to explain the actual timeframes being discussed, when dinosaurs were on the planet etc. I think science education can come from unexpected places (as we discussed during the Sunday panel). The key is education about science and the scientific method and critical thinking; not necessarily the activity of DOING science.
Does that make sense?
Reed - I agree, it would be nice to be able to have the conversations be more interactive but I also think that can make it difficult to stay on track and be intimidating for the presenter, particularly since so many of our presenters are new to the process of speaking. Definitely something to think about for next year!
Also, congrats on the Mabus hit! :)
Maria
Congratulations, it appears that first commenter is the infamous David Mabus, who must have noticed that we talked about him in the panel during Skepticamp and therefore targeted you for his bizarre wrath.
As for the Venn diagram - that is my invention. I've mentioned it at skeptic conferences before, notably the "fringe" panel at TAM London and my Intro to Skepticism workshop at TAM7. It's always been received favorably.
I didn't see the Beowulf-dragon-dinosaur presentation, but if said lecture was targeted at creationists, I would argue the diagram still applies. I think it is irrelevant whether a skeptical argument is being "framed" as science education. Fundamentally there is some science there in most skeptical discussions, even when purely logical arguments are being used. For instance, if they were talking about logical arguments on whether something was or was not a dinosaur, then that's science and you are implicitly educating people about it by even speaking.
The consumer protection part of the equation in that case is in protecting parents from bogus education options (e.g. creationism) for their children. Even plain old debunking is consumer protection, because just the act of receiving information is an act of consumption.
If you are talking about purely philosophical arguments like whether God exists, well I really don't care if the diagram adequately covers that part of skepticism. As I said in the aforementioned Skepticamp panel, the whole atheism-as-an-end-to-itself thing really doesn't interest me. Frankly, neither does most other philosophy discussions.
I'm more interested in protecting people from bad information and choices. I think that's alot of what, for instance, James Randi has focused on in his career as a skeptic. In my opinion the diagram very accurately covers that core part of skepticism.
I'd be interested in other examples you could offer that do not fit the diagram, examples that I could see in full and don't refer to material I can't easily access. (I'm in a hotel right now and can't view the video of that talk). Thanks.
@Maria
Agreed that it's a different experience for the speakers when they take questions during their talks. I'm curious to know if it becomes more conversational or adversarial in practice.
In my anecdotal experience I've seen the former in most cases. The latter when a climate dissident spoke, as an example.
However, the need for quality control exists nonetheless. We need to think carefully about this problem, because by not addressing it, SkeptiCamp is merely a half-assed version of curated events. We need to shoot higher.
Happy to get some feedback! Especially from my dear friend Davey Mabus. Where else can "atheist fuckers" go to reliably get some vague threats?
As the one who will likely be assembling the glossary handouts for Dragon*Con, I don't think I'm going to include the Venn diagram. Not because I believe it's inaccurate, but because I think it's a little heavy for the audience I'm targeting with the glossary. (New skeptics, curious non-skeptics, furries who wandered into the wrong room, etc.) I'll have limited space on the handouts, and the diagram to me requires a lot of real estate to explain - especially if the person you're explaining it to doesn't really know who James Randi is, and has maybe only seen Mythbusters a couple of times.
As for making more interactive presentations at skepticamp - I think that's a good goal, but it would not work for everyone. My own presentation (about visiting an acupuncturist) was more of a narrative, and could have gone completely haywire if a mid-talk discussion had broken out.
But maybe next time, we can emphasize opening presentations up for questions periodically during talks instead of piling them all at the end. We want to keep trying things so we can continue being better than Denver :)
I would be as likely congratulate someone about getting a DM visit as I would be to congratulate someone on contracting herpes. The only difference is that herpes is easier to treat. He's been here since about Easter, and I'd be mad at him if he weren't clearly mentally ill.
@Reed: Hi, Reed. We met last year while eating Chinese food at Dragon*Con. Just so you know. I AM everywhere. Muahahaha!
Regarding the roots of skepticism, I'd have to retreat to empiricism: backing claims with evidence. I think that a lot of people do associate Skepticism with science exclusively, but if you look at something like Holocaust denial, something Shermer has written a good deal about, it's not so much science as it is drawing reasonable, defensible conclusions based on adequate, relevant evidence. Sure, science will play a part in ferreting out, say, forged documents from authentic docs. The structure of argument, however, that leads to the conclusion that the Holocaust happened, is the same as, say, the argument that leads to the conclusion that there was a Big Bang (minus certain precise quantitative predictions): you have multiple lines of evidence that are all best explained by one interpretation. W/ respect to the Beowulf presentation, she was tracing a line of thought developed by people who don't have other evidence, and so they mangle someone else's area of expertise by playing medievalist. It was written for an audience who was already on-board with the idea that creationists don't know their asses from their elbows. She was illustrating, I think, that literary analysis and translation is a valid form of empirical inquiry, that genuine expertise extends beyond the realm of the natural sciences, and that you impersonate expertise (pay attention, Bill Wilson) at your own risk.
@krelnik: Literature is not subject to the exact same sorts of methods of analysis as scientific data, but arguments (defensible interpretations) about literature have to be grounded in textual and contextual evidence. At D*C last year, Eugenie Scott made the point that it is that critical thinking underpins all scholastic pursuits, including good theology.
I would look to the Aristotelian enthyeme as an example of arguing about defensible unquantified (or unquantifiable) probabilities. Most claims of policy ("we should...") in public/political discourse fall under this category. "We should drill, baby, drill" is a defensible position, but can we really be said to quantify the certainty of it being a good decision or not? I mean, science can inform that discussion, but there is a lot about that discussion that falls outside the realm of science, such as how you define "good" or "desirable," how people prioritize, etc. Blah blah blah. :)
I'll write something up about the public format issues later. (That question, for instance, would be one that does not fall easily under the paradigm established by science. Heehee.) I have other stuff to do at this moment, but I hope that you all draw come back. I am a regular at the Skeptics in the Pub stuff, even if I am Mr. Mysterious online.
HJ
@Bing: Unless I'm misreading your intent, I think you have an unstated premise in your argument about policy discussions. Namely: that this even falls under "skepticism" at all.
I would say it falls far outside skepticism. Yes, you can use critical thinking to evaluate arguments about policy. But that doesn't make it a valid skeptical topic. Critical thinking is a general purpose tool and it is not solely in the possession of skeptics.
Frankly, I think this is a good thing. We have enough on our plate as it is with alt-med, paranormal, religious claims, etc, etc. If skepticism was required to "own" every single argument where critical thinking applied, there would be practically no area of human thought that was out of bounds.
Still looking for an example that is truly a bread-and-butter skeptic topic that does NOT fit my Venn Diagram.
All sorts of conspiracy theories and brands of historical revisionism, I would think, fall outside the realm of science education. The endlessly flogged question of whether Shakespeare was really Shakespeare comes almost entirely from people who are familiar with the materials and documentary evidence we have. Whatsay the Bermuda Triangle? The most devastating argument that I have seen against it was Larry Kusche's archival work, which failed to turn up historical instances that fit the most popular stories. There was one...ach! I can't remember which podcast I heard it on...the White Witch of Rose Hall in Jamaica. Totally busted because Ben Radford (I think it was) found out that Annie Palmer, the presumed spirit, was a character in a fictional novel. That strikes me as historical (and in this case cultural/literary) research as opposed to scientific work.
"Critical thinking is a general purpose tool and it is not solely in the possession of skeptics."
A big secular amen, there. I think we could agree that skepticism could not exist without critical thinking.
Here's an idea. Skepticism is the intersection of empiricism (evidence-based evaluation) and critical thinking (avoiding logical pitfalls, recognizing bias, etc). The skeptical "movement," what we end up doing with the fruits of skepticism, adds the components of public education, which includes consumer protection.
HJ
Arguing amongst anonymous complaints on the internet is pretty much my least favorite activity, but I feel a need to defend our Skepticamp.
1. No one was ever dissuaded from participating or commenting during presentations. In fact, at more than one of the SkeptiBOOTcamp workshops we discussed ways to make a presentations more interactive with the audience. Not only that, the reason speakers were asked to keep presentations to around 15 minutes was in order allow time for "comments and discussion DURING and after presentations"
2. Not only was there nothing stopping anyone from commenting during presentations, there was PLENTY of opportunity that was ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED for people to comment, question or correct someone directly after their presentation during Q & A sessions that were EQUALLY AS LONG AS THE PRESENTATIONS THEMSELVES.
3. Not only was there the opportunity to comment during presentations and after presentations during 15 minute Q & A sessions. At the end of the Skepticamp there was a session where attendees were ask to question and comment on the event itself, AT THE EVENT ITSELF, and were also given surveys and asked to comment and rate their experience.
4. I'm aware that there are diagrams available of "ideal" and "non ideal" chair configurations that promote more "interactive presentations" for Skepticamps. I don't mean to speak for all the other organizers when I say, We're not God(s). I think we found a great venue, and did a great job of making sure ANYONE who wanted to participate was able to do so. Personally, I think THAT is the most important part of Skepticamp.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of Atlanta Skepticamp. But I don't wish for there to be this idea that critical commenting and questions of our presenters or our event were somehow not encouraged, much less discouraged.
@Bing: All right, I'll agree that some pseudo-history and some conspiracy theories are good examples that the venn diagram doesn't cover well.
It should be pointed out that the intent of the Venn Diagram is not to be an all-encompassing logically correct definition of skepticism. It came out of a perception that skepticism has always had an "image" problem. Historically we've been a movement full of grey haired curmudgeonly old white men railing about things that are incorrect (Randi, Kurtz, Hyman, etc). Even the very word "skeptic" has profoundly negative connotations to some people. I sought out something better to use to explain what we do to laymen and new recruits, that wouldn't sound so negative.
It is intended to do four things:
(1) Explain "what is a skeptic" to newcomers and the general public.
(2) Do so using plain everyday language that everyone can understand. ("Epistemiology" is right out).
(3) Do so WITHOUT mentioning specific topic areas ("UFOs", "bigfoot", "psychics") any one of which can be off-putting depending on whether you are talking to a partial believer or a closet skeptic. ("What, you're against Bigfoot? Why? Who the hell still believes in Bigfoot? What a waste of time!")
(4) Do so using only terms that have positive connotations. In other words, define skeptics in terms of what we are FOR, not what we are AGAINST.
Given those goals, and admitting there are some areas like pseudohistory that technically don't fit, I think it serves a valuable purpose.
No offense, I think by nitpicking whether it perfectly fits skepticism, you are precisely underscoring why we need better ways to explain what we do. This kind of pedantry tends to alienate newcomers. Hell, it alienates ME.
I'd never inflict this type of dialog onto a newcomer who had not yet decided whether or not they wanted to throw in their hat with the forces of good. :)
HJ
Boy, something about "quality control" bothers me, in an it defeats the purpose sort of way. I think that a lot of the corrections could come out of the chat room. I did not get to see the chat room while people spoke. Did not people in the room say, "No way, Jose?" (Although I thought Jose's talk was great overall.) The questions in the Q&A should take into account the ongoing dialog in the chat room.
Regarding breaking in on a presentation: Yikes. I can't think of a way in which that is good, partially because of what Maria said, namely that the noobs will panic and try to crash through the window like frightened deer. Let's say that someone with experience and expertise is giving a talk. Cutting in might be considered disrespectful.
Hell, even correcting someone publicly is often perceived more as shaming than productive.
There are, of course, a number of presentation styles, most of which are encountered at conferences, and there is no reason why they can't be made to work in the Skepticamp model. The one-presenter-and-then questions-model works well for keynote speakers, for instance. Another format, one which I have been involved with numerous times, is you have 3 related papers and then a discussion--this seems hard to coordinate for a community event, however, it could be done. Then there is the panel discussion, which was done at Skepticamp Atlanta, and which went pretty well. Another version of this is the seminar, where everyone sits in a circle and contributes. Hard to film, but truly community. Then there is the workshop, which is smaller than the seminar but is very similar. It's a seminar with a single expert.
I suspect that the most equitable manner of ensuring quality, built in checks and collaboration would be a mix of all of these styles of presentation.
HJ
@krelnik
You say you want to appeal to those who are new to skepticism. Terrific. You also say you don't want to alienate potential skeptics. Nifty. To achieve your goals, you have invented a definition of skepticism that perfectly describes what YOU do. Don't get me wrong--what you do is great, but your definition seems to exclude me from the skeptics club. Thanks, good to know I shouldn't waste any more time in skeptical pursuits. From now on, I shall only drink credulously.
@Taylor
It's not my intent to be an anonymous critic here.
My original comment above was based upon my two or three times visiting via the live stream to watch talks, where the questions were invariably occurring at the end of the talks. With Bing's concern about over-reaching by some speakers I'd thought (clearly mistakenly) that the format was more traditional lecture-style than Barcamp interactive.
If you were encouraging questions during the talks, that's to your credit, even if the attendees weren't taking advantage of it for every speaker.
We've seen much passivity among skeptics at these events, which may be a consequence of how skepticism has been so lecture-oriented for so long. It's part of what we're trying to fix.
@Bing
Open events are unique animals where anyone can sign up for a talk. While most talks are great, you will occasionally get some mediocre or bad ones. The speaker might have an axe to grind, such as a denialist or those with a partisan agenda. They might have a bias blind spot and grossly overestimate their expertise. Worst of all they might be delusional or otherwise mentally ill.
I don't know to what degree you've experienced any of that in Atlanta, but we've seen a little of all of those here in Colorado. If you don't keep it in check (by some means) you risk attrition of attendees who have better things to do than to listen to someone abusing the privilege of a captive audience.
So the question arises, how do you deal with it? Curation is one obvious choice, but it requires an investment of time on the part of the organizers and is a minefield of perceived favoritism and politics. (And besides, it's no longer an open event at that point.)
Q&A is another, but to reserve it for the end of the talk (as in a traditional lecture) is to risk the spread of misinformation, only a portion of which can be corrected in the time allotted at the end. (And even then, attendees may confuse bad info for good info.)
Open events aren't for everyone, but they have advantages that traditional curated events have difficulty overcoming (inclusiveness, cost, reach, speaker development, e.g.) However you need some means of discouraging the crap and encouraging good talks, otherwise there's little point to the effort.
Whether other presentation styles could be made to work at an open event (non-curated, i.e.) is an interesting question. I'd be concerned that with more 'rules' than we already have, it'd just throw up more barriers to participation and organizing, and that is not the way of open events.
The 'unconferences' as SkeptiCamp focus on discussion and conversation in a deliberate way. If skepticism isn't ready for it, that's a shame, because I'd hope that a commitment to critical thinking and getting the facts right (even at the expense of being publicly corrected) would be a priority among us.
@Anonymous: Please explain what it is you do as a skeptic that the Venn Diagram does NOT cover, and I would be more than happy to address it. Perhaps a better version of the diagram would result!
But your comment as written is unhelpful, and in fact quite trollish.
@Reed: There is another option, a Skepticamp Recap. The good talks get repackaged in, say, flv/dvd/ conference proceeding form and distributed. The organization signs off on and stands by certain presentations and not other ones, for a variety of reasons. It's just an idea.
Ooh! How about a video compilation?!
HJ
@Bing: A recap video (or podcast) is always an option. It only requires motivated parties to put it together.
But I'm not sure if that's going to deter the abusers and the damage they can do to those who participate seeking substance.
I do want to post all our videos and sources, since we have them. However, I am leery to pick and choose which ones 'make the cut.' Skepticamp is about bringing 'amateurs' into skepticism and this is just another area where we would be excluding people.
I think we will likely publish all of the videos (with permission) regardless of whether they have possible errors in them.
That's the whole point. These are not professional speakers. Yes, we should certainly discuss when someone gets something wrong. But people shouldn't be scared to speak because they are not 100% experts on a topic.
Skepticamp is less about getting the facts 100% right and more about the process of finding a topic, creating a presentation, honing your skills and sharing the information you've learned. And maybe you make some mistakes this year but next year, you do better.
If someone judges you as 'not good enough,' that stops you from trying again next year and I am very, very vehemently against that.
I think that you are right about that, Maria. Be sensitive. Totally. I certainly wouldn't ask anyone to pass judgment on anyone that they knew, for instance. Is there a Skepticamp heirarchy that might be interested in promoting Skepticamp-as-national/international model by showcasing talks. Or raise funds for them by selling DVDs or whatever. Just tossing ideas out there.
HJ
@Maria
I'd characterize Barcamp/SkeptiCamp a bit more broadly, as not merely sharing knowledge among amateurs, but across an entire community, from the newbie to the experienced and knowledgeable veteran.
As to whether those veterans will choose to participate should be an interesting (and perhaps revealing) development to watch.
Post a Comment