Sunday, January 14, 2007

the many faces of 'Faith'

my highlights in blue.

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/steven_poole/2007/01/o_ye_of_too_much_faith.html

O ye of too much faith

People point the finger at religion as the cause of society's ills, but to do so deliberately confounds political arguments.

"Faith" sounds like a friendly word, doesn't it? It's welcoming and ecumenical, affecting no prejudicial distinction between religions; and it also has an uplifting secular sense of hope or optimism, as George Michael so funkily exploited. You might even have faith in something like progress or the fundamental decency of humankind. Faith seems like something it's just good to have, regardless of what it is faith in.

Unfortunately these days the word "faith" is also a weapon of Unspeak in the hands of bigots, used deliberately to confound political arguments. And the problem is that it so often succeeds.

Why do I say it's a weapon of Unspeak? Because, in fact, "faith" is not the issue. People believe in all sorts of interesting if unproven things, from anthropomorphic sky-gods to reincarnation, or the existence of a multiverse, or the Platonic existence already of all music. Their mere "faith" in such things harms no one and may benefit them. It is only when the subject turns from expressing what one believes, to expressing what one believes and further saying that therefore society must be ordered in a certain way, that the problems begin.

If I say that I believe in the Platonic existence already of all music, and add that therefore bagpipes must be banned because they are a gruesome insult to the very idea of music, a garish cancer on the ideal that threatens, if left unchecked, actually to eat music utterly and destroy its Platonic immanence, then others have a right to challenge my political recommendation, perhaps by citing the economic benefits of tourism to Scotland etc.

Similarly, if someone self-identifying as a Christian believes in the literal truth of Leviticus and then says that therefore government should not grant equal rights to homosexuals - an opinion in no way inherent to the "faith" of Christianity as it is understood by many other Christians - then he or she may be challenged on that political recommendation. Similarly with the stricture against the education of women by some Muslims, not shared by all who profess the "faith" of Islam. In both cases, the challenge is mounted not on grounds of "faith" but of politics, since the proposal itself is political, a question of how society should be ordered now.

In response, the bigot, very cleverly, will change the subject. Attacked for his desire that certain people should be oppressed, he responds by pretending that his very "faith" is being attacked - and if "faith" per se is an untrammelled personal virtue, then this is a serious charge. You are attacking his spiritual core. This rhetorical jiujitsu is lamentably powerful.

In his latest post, AC Grayling describes recent history thus: "Live and let live I say; but in recent years religious people have not been living and letting live. In fact quite a few of them have been killing." Well, surely the problem with the people to whom Grayling refers is not that they are religious, but that they kill? (No doubt quite a few people with moustaches have also been killing over the last few years, but this is no argument against moustaches.) The existence of very many people of the same "faith" who do not kill shows that the killing does not flow inexorably from the religion. That's just what the murderous ones want everyone to think. (Meanwhile, as Robert Pape has shown, a recent al-Qaida recruitment video was "stunning in its absence of religious declamation".)

Grayling offers in further evidence an amusing fictional conversation: "So many different, competing beliefs that have caused so many wars and burnings and bombings! 'The bread turns to human flesh.' 'No it doesn't: die!'" Well, is the word "caused" really appropriate there? Has there never in human history been a conversation that went, instead: "The bread turns to human flesh." "No it doesn't; and would you like a cup of tea?" Personally, I suspect there have been a great many such conversations, and their existence provides economical proof that the beliefs themselves do not "cause" wars and burnings and bombings. You need something else besides the belief: you need a desire to burn and bomb. In many cases, the belief may just be a handy excuse.

So I propose that we should not accept the bigots' language, since to do so is to grant them their sordid excuses. Take the phrase "faith groups", a term Dave Hill accepts and uses in his otherwise highly reasonable post. When "faith groups" get into politics they are not "faith groups" but political groups: they are "pressure groups" lobbying for secular effect, just like the CBI or the risibly named creationist sect Truth in Science. As Grayling rightly says, they are indeed "one set of interest groups among many others". And as for "faith schools" - well, hang on, isn't that an oxymoron?

But we should be clear that the problem with those who demonstrated against gay rights on Monday was not that they were religious, but that they were bigots. It was not a "multi-faith demonstration", as the organisers pretended, but an opportunistic alliance of gay-haters. A mob of atheist homophobes would not have been somehow better. "Faith" had very little to do with it.

What is Skepticism?

reposted from: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php
my highlights in blue. My comments in red.

An overview of what skepticism actually is.

Skepticism is an honest search for knowledge. It is an approach to claims akin to the scientific method.

What is the difference between Skepticism and Scientific Method?

It is a powerful and positive method of inquiry which is used to evaluate claims and make decisions. It is used to search for the truth in matters and to make decisions that are based on logic, evidence and sound reasoning. Skepticism is based on a simple method: doubt and inquiry. The idea is to neither initially accept claims nor dismiss them; it’s about questioning them and testing them for validity. Only after inquiry does a skeptic take a stance on an issue.

There is more than one way to look at claims of all kinds:

Acceptance.

For many reasons, people will accept claims at face value. The claims may agree with their other beliefs and so are deemed acceptable, they may have heard a claim repeated so often that they assume it must be true (e.g. we only use 10% of our brains) or it may be something they would like to be true; that fits in with their world-view or that of their social group.

This approach has the major disadvantage that claims and beliefs are not scrutinised and could well be false.

Denial.

This approach, a dogmatic one, is where a claim is dismissed without consideration because it does not fit in with a person's current understanding, belief system or world-view. No thought or scrutiny needs to be used; if the claim is not deemed acceptable for any reason, it is denied. The disadvantage to this approach is that if a claim were to be true, it would not be recognised as such.

Doubt and inquiry.

This method is skepticism. Claims, whether they look reasonable or extremely unlikely to be true, will be doubted; however, they will not be denied. A skeptic will then inquire after the truth. The method involves:

  1. Doubt.

    Doubt is not the same as denial. Skeptics use doubt constructively; it is a provisional stance, the suspension of judgment: a position held until a claim can be assessed. The purpose of constructive doubt is to avoid hasty conclusions such as accepting or rejecting claims without justification.

  2. Inquiry.

    To inquire means to search for knowledge. This is the very heart of skepticism. If a claim is to be examined, evidence in support of the claim needs to be considered, but crucially, so do counter-claims and alternative explanations. Successful inquiry is the result of examining all of the evidence related to a claim and reaching a conclusion that is justifiable.

After inquiry, a skeptic will form a conclusion on an issue; however, this conclusion is a provisional one which may change if better or newer information comes to light. This aspect of holding a provisional position on matters gives skepticism the beneficial attribute of being self-correcting. There is no dogma with skepticism: no matter how sound a conclusion appears there is always room for it to be shown to be wrong by new evidence.

The advantage of this method is that claims are scrutinised. False and misleading claims stand a much better chance of being discovered as such; and any claim, whether ordinary, paranormal, or scientific, that seems unlikely but is nonetheless true, will have a good chance of being shown to be true.

The burden of proof.

The burden of proof is the concept that it is up to those making a claim to prove it, or provide good supporting evidence for it, rather than for others to disprove it. This is the same concept as how a court of law operates. It is up to the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty; it's not up to the defence to prove innocence.

This is the approach to claims that skeptics take. A claim presented will be doubted (presumed unproved) until the evidence in support of it can be examined. If the evidence supports the claim, either completely or beyond reasonable doubt, the claim will be accepted; otherwise it will be rejected unless or until further evidence is presented.

What is evidence?

When talking about evidence, skeptics are referring to tangible or empirical evidence. That is, evidence that can be inspected or examined by third parties. It is the quality, or robustness, of supporting evidence that determines whether a claim is accepted or rejected.

It is because of the importance of the high quality of evidence required to support claims that one of the most popular forms of general evidence, personal testimony (or anecdotes), is not accepted as being satisfactory to support a claim. Psychologists have identified many cognitive errors (reasoning, perception, memory, etc.) that we all possess which means that we can form many wrong conclusions about things no matter how sincerely we may believe them.

Popular misconceptions:

  • Skepticism is a belief system.

    It’s not, it's a method. In fact it is quite the opposite of a belief system. Of course skeptics, people who use the skeptical method, often have opinions that are at odds with many people's beliefs; however, that does not make skepticism a belief system.

  • Skeptics are closed-minded.

    This criticism is normally made by those who believe in things that are either unproven or have been disproved. Such people think it is being 'open minded' to believe in things that have no evidence to support them. Believing in such things is not being open-minded, it's being credulous.

  • Skeptics do not believe in anything.

    This misconception probably comes from philosophical skepticism; a branch of philosophy that questions whether absolute knowledge and certainty are possible. Modern skepticism is rational skepticism; the method of doubt and inquiry explained above.

    Many people also make a fallacy of equivocation and confuse the word sceptical (to be doubtful) with skepticism (the method of inquiry) and assume that skeptics are simply doubters or disbelievers.

  • Skepticism is about opposing claims.

    Skepticism is about examining claims, not opposing them. As explained, skeptics will doubt claims until they can be scrutinised; this, however, is the correct way to deal with new claims. There's no logical reason to accept or reject a claim before it has been examined - hence the suspension of judgment.

    Of course skeptics do oppose many claims, such as many involving the paranormal and pseudoscience; this is not simply an automatic opposition to such claims however, it's because such claims have been examined and the supporting evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.

  • Skeptics are debunkers.

    Bunk is another word for nonsense and means the opposite of something that is true or factual. To debunk something means to remove the nonsense from it and reveal what is true. Skepticism is not about debunking per se, but it is an important consequence of critical inquiry. In fact, contrary to popular understanding, the best way of showing that something is true is that it can resist attempts to prove it false: attempting to prove something as false is a robust way testing its validity.

    The misconception here is not that skeptics sometimes end up debunking claims; but that the word 'debunker' is often used as a pejorative term. Debunking nonsense ideas, scams, hoaxes and misleading claims is of positive, not negative, value.

    It should be made clear, however, that skeptics do not set out with the purpose of debunking claims (i.e. holding a preconceived position of a claim's falsity). Some claims will simply end up being debunked as a consequence of skeptical inquiry. That's an important distinction to understand.

Summary.

Skepticism is a method of inquiry, not a position on matters. It is a way of examining claims and making decisions. The idea is to apply the rules of logic and reason with critical thinking skills in assessing claims or issues and to form conclusions based on evidence, not on personal preference or prejudice.

This method makes it more likely that those who use it will reach correct conclusions on issues; which, of course, can be of great benefit in all walks of life: personal, business, health matters, recognising scams and misleading claims, finance, etc.

Skepticism is a positive and healthy approach for reality-based living.

What is Relativism?

reposted from: BBC - What is Relativism?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4460673.stm
my highlights in blue.

What is relativism?
Archbishop Piero Marini closes the door of the Sistine Chapel for the conclave
There was no way in for moral relativism at conclave
Shortly before he was elected pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger delivered a withering denunciation of relativism. For those unfamiliar with even the blunter points of philosophy, what was he driving at?

Moral relativism is the idea that moral principles have no objective standard, so states its dictionary definition.

In its extreme, the view that there are no hard and fast rules on what is right and wrong, on which values are set and should be fought for.

It is in contrast to absolutism, that there is one truth.

One man's meat...

Relativism is "Different opinions, no one authority, and as many 'truths' as there are people or societies or cultures advancing different ways of doing things," says Simon Blackburn, Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University.

It is easy, he says, "to give relativism a slogan: Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison." And when that is applied to ethics, then goodness, virtue and duty also lie in the eye of the beholder.

We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires
Pope Benedict XVI
(when Cardinal Ratzinger)

So, for the western liberal, living under western liberal influences, with western liberal opinions, he says, contraception and abortion are in, but for the Catholic Church, they are out.

In his sermon ahead of the conclave to choose a new Pope, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned of the need to preserve the Church's traditional Catholic tenets against modern trends, against the "dictatorship of relativism".

Moral standards, Catholic conservatives believe, should be perfect and unchanging.

At the same time, relativism was being attacked in the British general election campaign. Under it, said Michael Howard, leader of the Conservative Party, traditional British values are "being trashed" as "the victims have become the aggressors and the aggressors have become the victims"

Plato's problem

On education, much is made of a lack of discipline in schools at a time when parents can challenge the teachers who used to be a figure of absolute authority.

The arguments' theme is not new. Two and a half thousand years ago, Professor Blackburn points out, Plato opposed relativism in his Dialogues when he sought "one true opinion, real knowledge, real authority" and wanted to establish the error of other opinions.

Plato and Michael Howard
Plato and Howard are not fans

In the Reformation, Martin Luther argued authority came from each believer, from the bottom up, not from the top down, as Church heads would have it.

As Julian Baggini, editor of The Philosopher's Magazine, highlights, relativism grew under "early globalisation" when explorers discovered other cultures had different standards and morals, a catalyst to reconsider their own.

In the late 20th Century, postmodernism had academics arguing that there is no one truth, just many interpretations. And in politics, some cast the impeachment of President Clinton as an absolutist attempt to establish right over wrong.

Crude picture

But philosophers warn against painting a crude black and white contrast between one absolute truth and the rest - bagging together all "relativists".

"The problem is that it's not just a contrast to absolutism," says Baggini.

Relativism, he says, gets "a bad name" from opponents like the church who cast it only as "an anything goes" approach to moral questions. The reality has a much more diverse set of views, he says.

That bad name, he believes, is "perhaps the biggest example of philosophical illiteracy".


A selection of your comments:

The biggest problem that I have with these comments against Relativism is that the speaker is almost always the leader or an official of an organisation claiming to be the "one truth and morality". They are in effect simply telling the listener to obey them.
Richard Read, London, UK

An absolutist stance to morality is too simplistic. For example, there is a world of difference in intent between the taking of life as an act of murder and the taking of life as an act of mercy. That is why absolutism ends up as moral fascism.
R. Legard, UK

The belief that there is only one moral truth and that you are following the only one moral truth is the source of all bigotry and hatred, in religion, politics and elsewhere. It allows you to demonise others as evil, refuse to see their point of view and refuse to accept that moral standpoints are based in culture and change alongside it.
James, UK

I actually believe relativism is a positive thing. What exactly is the basis for moral absolutes? How does one know they exist? What morals in themselves are absolute? Moral relativism can be seen in everyday life anyhow. Some think it's wrong to eat meat. Personally, I don't believe it is. The Ancient Greeks practiced slavery and believed in was an acceptable institution. Contemporary Europeans do not.
Chris, United Kingdom

The Catholic church relies on revelation as the source of truth. It has been proved wrong before (Galileo) and be may so again. For it to deride people questioning and attempting to find truth via other means sticks in my throat. That said, there does appear to be a great deal of philosophical vacuity in the modern world at the moment. If the church means to correct this by reasoned philosophical discussion then it is laudable.
TW, UK

No-one believes 100% in relativism. None of us live 100% by absolutes.
James, London, UK

Society changes, it has to to survive. This, by definition, means that all societies that want to prosper over long periods of time are 'relative'. If you lived in an 'absolute' world, we would still believe slavery was fine, that monarchs were divine beings and we should never leave our place.
Urd Yggradsil

One major flaw with moral objectivity which relativism addresses is the ability to react to modern moral dilemmas. Traditional absolutist ideas are silent on issues such as cloning, stem cell research and separation of conjoined twins.
Rob Wastell, UK

Relativism does not equal moral dissolution: it merely recognises the blatant fact that there is a plurality of beliefs. The pluralism of democratic Western liberal societies, for which we should all be deeply grateful, would not be possible without the concept of relativism.
Anon, Liverpool, UK

"Moral standards, Catholic conservatives believe, should be perfect and unchanging." Really? Can we expect the return of thumbscrews, the rack, and public burnings for heretics and moral relativists?
John Rogers, UK

It's worth pointing out that moral relativism is in itself an absolutist moral stance as it states that no one moral system has the right to impose itself over another moral system. If relativists were to be relative about this they would instead take the view that if a particular morality includes condeming another then that stance is relatively right for the moral code in question.
Steve, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England

Creationism in British Schools - A History

reposted from: http://theskepticexpress.com/creationism_in_british_schools.php

2003

April 2003: Richard Dawkins attacks plans announced by the Vardy Foundation (on Radio 4’s Today programme on 28/4/03) to open a further six schools teaching a creationist version of the origin of life, in addition to Emmanuel College, Gateshead. Education Guardian

September 2003: King's Academy in Middlesbrough opens its doors. Formed from a partnership between the Department for Education and the Wearside-based Vardy Foundation it is a sister facility to Gateshead's Emmanuel College, which follows a "creationism" curriculum. BBC.

December 2003: The Guardian organises a conference on ‘Creationism: Science versus faith in schools’.

2004-2007

More information

Scientific skepticism

reposted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism
my highlights in blue.

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (non-US spelling, scepticism) sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is a scientific, or practical, epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, a scientific skeptic generally focuses on critically examining claims and theories which they believe to be far beyond the mainstream of science.

Scientific skepticism is different from philosophical skepticism, which questions our right to claim knowledge about the nature of the world and how we perceive it. Scientific skepticism utilizes critical thinking and attempts to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis.

More information.

Skeptic James Randi Revamps $1M Psychic Prize

my highlights in blue.

reposted from James Randi: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge:
The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests.

Skeptic Revamps $1M Psychic Prize

If you're an undiscovered psychic, soothsayer, dowser or medium, time may be running out for you to put your supernatural powers to the test and claim a million dollar prize.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Ten years after stage magician and avowed skeptic James Randi first offered a seven-figure payday to anyone capable of demonstrating paranormal phenomenon under scientific scrutiny, the 79-year-old clear-eyed curmudgeon is revising the rules of his nonprofit foundation's Million Dollar Challenge to better target high-profile charlatans, and spend less time on unknown psychics, who too often turn out to be delusional instead of deceptive.

"We can't waste the hundreds of hours that we spend every year on the nutcases out there -- people who say they can fly by flapping their arms," says Randi. "We have three file drawers jam-packed with those collections.... There are over 300 claims that we have handled in detail."

A skeptic since his teen years, Randi launched his challenge in 1964, after growing outraged with fake mediums and fortunetellers using simple conjurers' tricks to prey on the public. A challenge was an efficient alternative to trying to prove a negative: Instead of traveling the world investigating and debunking miracle workers one-by-one, an unclaimed cash prize stands as a fact on the ground -- an immovable obstacle around which anyone purporting supernatural powers must eventually navigate.

The challenge started small. Randi initially offered $1,000 of his own money to anyone who could read a mind or bend a spoon under controlled conditions. He later upped the ante to $10,000, but still didn't get a lot of takers. "There wasn't much interest in $10,000, and frankly I couldn't afford more than that," he says.

Then in 1996, an unnamed donor contributed a million dollars to the cause. Today the James Randi Education Foundation has an office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and a small staff to keep pace with a steady stream of applicants, all supported by member contributions, grants and the interest off the million bucks, which remains unclaimed.

Currently, claiming the money takes a few steps: An initiate first has to submit a notarized application, agree with the foundation on a test protocol, then pass a preliminary test administered by independent local investigators. Should the would-be psychic pass the first test, under the agreed-upon rules, all that remains is to repeat his or her success in front of Randi -- then, poof, a psychic millionaire is born.

In 10 years, though, nobody's passed the preliminary exam. The most recent one was administered in Stockholm in October, when Swedish medium Carina Landin tried to identify the gender of the authors of 20 diaries by touching the covers. She got 12 right; 16 was the agreed-upon threshold for success. (The foundation plans to re-administer Landin's test following revelations that several of the diaries were older than stipulated in the protocol.)

Before that, the last preliminary test was in July 2005, when a Hawaiian psychic named Achau Nguyen traveled to Los Angeles to demonstrate he could mentally transmit his thoughts to a friend in another room. Under the watchful eyes of paranormal investigators, a video camera and a small audience, Nguyen selected 20 index cards from a deck of 30 and focused on the words written on each of them in turn -- while one floor below his "receiver" wrote down the wrong word, 20 out of 20 times.

These tests, however unsuccessful, represent the cream of the crop for the Million Dollar Challenge -- polite, sincere applicants able to agree to a reasonable testing protocol. The vast majority of the people applying for the money don't get that far.

A Nevada man legally named "The Prophet Yahweh" planned to seize the prize for charity by summoning two spaceships to a Las Vegas park last year, but negotiations broke down when he announced he was bringing several armed guards to the demonstration in case any "negative personalities" showed up. An inventor who claimed to have built a device that could sense the psychic distress of an egg about to be dropped into a pot of boiling water recently abandoned his application when the foundation suggested the egg be threatened by a hammer instead, in case the invention was really just detecting steam.

"One a week gets as far as a protocol negotiation, and then drops off," says Jeff Wagg, who administers the challenge.

Those are the easy ones. In some of the applications, perhaps most of them, the foundation has to deal with the thorny dilemma of where to draw the line between upholding its commitment, and potentially exploiting or feeding someone's mental illness. The demarcation is inherently tricky, since the entire theatre of paranormal testing is located in the realm of extra-rational belief.

A San Francisco woman, for example, was determined to prove that she wasn't human. She had trouble articulating why she believed that, but somehow the Secret Service was involved. In a more recent application, a New York state man claimed that he could summon the appearance of small objects while walking down a road. "The results are plain to see and obviously appear by themselves, in various random arrangements," he wrote the foundation. "I will these phenomenon into being, and/or they happen because of my physical presence alone, therefore I claim to have these powers."

What a psychiatrist might interpret as a warning sign for schizophrenia, the James Randi Educational Foundation is obliged to take seriously. After all, who's to say that random objects teleporting into existence is any more unlikely than Uri Geller telekinetically bending a spoon? But at some point, the process becomes distasteful.

"If we get them to go to a challenge and they lose, we're exposing someone who had serious mental illness," says Wagg. "That doesn't do us any good, and it doesn't do them any good. It doesn't prove anything."

Culling these applications from the process is a major goal of the revamped rules, which take effect April 1st 2007.

Starting then, the challenge will be closed to undiscovered psychic talent; to submit an application, the aspirant will have to demonstrate a "media profile" -- television reports, newspaper articles or a reference in a book that chronicles his or her extraordinary abilities.

"We're not going to deal with unknown people who have silly claims," says Wagg. "Let's say, somebody claims they can walk on water. We'll say, prove it to somebody else first. Get on the local news. Then bring it to us."

The applicant has to back up those press clippings with validation from the hallowed halls of academia. "They have to get some academic to endorse their claims," says Randi. "And that academic is not the local chiropractor or some such thing." The academic also has to stand behind the endorsement when contacted by the skeptics.

With the new criteria in place, the foundation will, at its option, dispense with the preliminary test and move right to the money game.

Using resources freed up by dropping unknown and mentally ill applicants, Randi hopes to make things uncomfortable for his real prey: the high-profile psychics who make their living off a credulous public, and who so far won't touch the Million Dollar Challenge with a 10-foot dowsing rod.

Randi says he'll start actively investigating professional mind-readers and mediums for proof of criminal fraud, or opportunities for civil lawsuits. Like Elliot Ness stalking Al Capone, he's not above busting a psychic for tangential infractions like tax code violations or an SEC matter.

At the same time, the foundation will choose six to eight high-profile targets each year, meticulously outline their claims, and then call them out one-by-one.

"We're going to pick people every year and hammer on them," says Wagg. "We're going to send certified mail, we're going to do advertising. We're going to pick a few people and say, we are actively challenging you. We may advertise in The New York Times. This will make the challenge a better tool, to be what it is supposed to be."

The foundation will launch this public-shaming initiative with a list of four targets, including self-proclaimed medium John Edward, and daytime talk show darling Sylvia Browne, who claims she can tell the future and see angels.

Browne is one of the United States' best known psychics, a best-selling author who frequently appears on Montel Williams and CNN's Larry King Live. In a 2001 appearance on Larry King, goaded by Randi, she seemed to agree to take the Million Dollar Challenge. She later backed away in an open letter to Randi on her website.

"As the saying goes, my self worth is completely unrelated to your opinion of me, and I've worked far too hard for far too many years, and have far too much left to do, to jump through hoops in the hope of proving something you've staked your reputations on mocking," she wrote. "I have no interest in your $1 million or any intention of pursuing it."

That's a disappointment, because if Browne's claims were ever to stand up to a scientific test in an adversarial process, it would be an unprecedented event in modern history, potentially changing our scientific understanding of the universe. Instead, you can buy a psychic phone call with her for $700.

Unlike Browne, Edward has never flip-flopped on the Randi test. He won't do it. In an appearance on CNN Headline News last October, he dismissed the notion with a quip. "Would I allow myself to be tested by somebody's whose got an adjective as a first name?" he said -- a reference to Randi's stage name, "The Amazing Randi."

CNN host Glenn Beck didn't press Edward for a serious answer. Instead he asked Edward about the time he contacted his mother beyond the grave -- "What was that like?" -- then opened the phones to callers looking for psychic advice. Edward specializes in passing messages between bereaved family members and their deceased loved ones; he told the first caller that someone in his family has cancer.

Edward didn't respond to an e-mail query for this story; Browne didn't return a phone call, and neither responded to several minutes of intense concentration. The other two psychics in Randi's fantastic four are Israeli spoon-bender Uri Geller and James Van Praagh, co-executive producer of CBS' Ghost Whisperer.

The media's lightweight treatment of professional psychics is a deadly serious matter to Randi. "People like Sylvia Browne have a very high profile, and she's always going to be on Montel Williams and she's going to be on Larry King," he says. "And they know what's going on, they're smart people. They know what's going on and they don't care."

Riled by clips like Edward's Headline News appearance, Randi's made media skepticism the theme of the 5th annual The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, a four-day skepticism conference kicking off Jan. 18 at the Riviera, where the full details of the revamped Million Dollar Challenge will be revealed to 800 attendees without the gift of prophecy.

James Randi on the paranormal, pseudoscientific and the supernatural


reposted from: http://www.randi.org/jr/index.html

James Randi has an international reputation as a magician and escape artist, but today he is best known as the world's most tireless investigator and demystifier of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.

Randi has pursued "psychic" spoonbenders, exposed the dirty tricks of faith healers, investigated homeopathic water "with a memory," and generally been a thorn in the sides of those who try to pull the wool over the public's eyes in the name of the supernatural.

He has received numerous awards and recognitions, including a Fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in 1986.

On October 19, 1993, the PBS-TV "NOVA" program broadcast a one-hour special dealing with Randi's life work, particularly with his investigations of Uri Geller and various occult and healing claims being made by scientists in Russia.

He is the author of numerous books, including The Truth About Uri Geller, The Faith Healers, Flim-Flam!, and An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural. His lectures and television appearances have delighted — and vexed — audiences around the world.

"We may disagree with Randi on certain points, but we ignore him at our peril."

-Carl Sagan

In 1996, the James Randi Education Foundation was established to further Randi's work. Randi's long-standing challenge to psychics now stands as a $1,000,000 prize administered by the Foundation. It remains unclaimed.

Detailed Biography | JREF Information | Contact Information

Critical Thinking at 'A' Level

Critical Thinking at A Level A Valuable Life Skill by David Yates

Critical Thinking for Sceptics

reposted from: http://theskepticexpress.com/critical_thinking_at_A_level.php

Critical Thinking at 'A' Level - OCR exam

my highlights in blue

When I was approached to write an article for “The Skeptic Express,” I began by wondering if its readers would be receptive to a consideration of the difference between “scepticism” and critical thinking. After all, one of the stated aims of this publication is to “encourage a logical and rational approach to fringe claims and magical thinking” but fringe claims are not necessarily illogical and critical reasoning is not necessarily an antidote to magical thinking.

More info.

The Skeptic Express

The Skeptic Express is the UK’s latest skeptical site bringing you the latest news, views, articles and opinions on the issues that matter.

Who are we?

The Skeptic Express is made up of an informal group of like-minded people who are united in their search for the truth in all manner of claims and their desire to fight misinformation, ignorance and untruths wherever they are found.

Our aims are quite simple:

  • To complement and contribute to the work of other skeptic organizations;
  • To encourage a rational and logical approach to fringe claims and magical thinking;
  • To provide a source of information and explanation on everyday issues;
  • To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills;
  • To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics;
  • To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds;
  • To publish a range of articles for information and comment.

Skepticism - an approach to life.

What is Skepticism?

For many skepticism conjures up cynical closed-minded attitudes spouted by terse, crusty old curmudgeons intent on spoiling everyone’s fun – but that negative image couldn’t be further from reality.

Skeptical not Cynical.

Put very simply, a skeptic is someone who is committed to logic, reason and critical thinking when making assessments or decisions. In short, skepticism is a method of inquiry not a position. Despite the image as nay saying killjoys a real skeptic will always approach any claim with the same positive rational and enquiring manner. If we say we’re skeptical of a claim, we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. It’s as simple as that.

Why is Skepticism Important?

In a society where we are expected to accept much at face value, thinking critically about the barrage of claims presented before us is a demanding but valuable skill to master bringing real and positive rewards. Only by being unafraid to ask hard questions can we ever hope to sift fact from fiction, sort good ideas from bad amongst the myriad of claims made in the name of science, culture, religion and politics by manufacturers, scam artists, fraudsters, modern day myth makers, hoaxers and cheats.

Our Areas of Interest:

  • The Paranormal – Can mediums really communicate with the dead? Can psychics predict the future or look back into your past? What about psychic surgeons, psychic detectives, faith healers, tarot, astrology and ghosts?

  • Pseudoscience – What are we to make of Intelligent Design and creationist theory, alternative medicine and therapies, conspiracy theories, current fads and diets, inflated manufacturer’s claims for their products, modern myths and legends packaged as science based fact?

  • Spin and Misinformation – political fluff and flannel, bogus and misleading claims in advertising, schemes and scams, cults, religion, nittwittery and nonsense wherever it occurs.

An Open Mind.

Skeptics are open minded to the possibility that an idea may be true or false and will seek to objectively discover which it is rather than be so open minded as to be credulous. Similarly, close mindedness reflects the position wherein someone cannot accept the possibility that an idea may be false. The role of the skeptic is to critically examine all ideas but to reject if there is no evidence to believe them either true or false. There is a balance to be achieved between being ‘so open minded that your brains fall out’ and rejecting potentially useful ideas. The key is evidence.

reposted from: http://theskepticexpress.com/
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Royal Society Aventis Prize for Science Books

The Aventis Prize for Science Books is an annual list of popular science books for adults and children. The Royal Society manages the prize and Aventis Foundation have sponsored the prize since 2004. A new sponsor is sought for the 2007 prize.

Simon Singh.com favourite Science Books

simon singh.net
an author, journalist and TV producer, specialising in science and mathematics, the only two subjects I have the faintest clue abou
t.

Interesting Science Books choice.


Boffin Productions - provide greetings cards for academics, sceptics and free-thinkers

Boffin Productions was established in order to provide greetings cards for academics, sceptics and free-thinkers.


We would also like to challenge the weird, primitive and/or absurd beliefs which have not been, or cannot be, scientifically tested but appear to be on the rise in modern society. Absurd and irrational ideas spread through society if scientists, mathematicians, sceptics and free-thinkers do nothing.


Examples:
Wanted, Absurdity of Homeopathy, Epicurus, the Citric Acid Cycle