Too Busy To Be Well-Informed?

A frequent allegation put to me when I pop up and debunk some nonsense story or image on one site or another is "you must have a lot of time on your hands." The implication being that some people are just too busy, too rushed off their feet, to fact-check information they are passing on to others. I say that if you are too busy to actually check that something you are sharing is actually true, DON'T SHARE IT. If you do you are guilty of spreading misinformation, can this have a dangerous side effect? In most cases, no, but consider the effect that a little fact checking would have had during the MMR scare back in 1998. There is little doubt that rates of incidence of these preventable illnesses have risen as a result of the propagation of inaccurate information. The worst thing about this is we now live in a time when sources of information have never been so easily accessible to the general public.

So how long does it take to "debunk" a false story? Seconds in many cases. Take this example a friend posted on Facebook.

Now, I'm no fan of Palin, and she certainly has the capability to say legitimately stupid things... But this seems too good to be true for her critics. In fact, it sounds remarkable like satire... which is exactly what it is. it took me no longer than 30 seconds on Google to find the original source... The Daily Currant, a satire site. http://dailycurrant.com/2014/03/20/palin-wonders-if-flight-370-flew-directly-to-heaven-2/

Here is a paranormal tale that took minutes to completely destroy using nothing more than a Google image search. Here're the story and image accompanying it. 

"Judith Tompkins was only eight years old when she disappeared in the late 1800's, Her father was rich and he dabbled in photography. This was the last image taken of Judith before she disappeared. Her father died in prison after being convicted in her disappearance. This image shows a hint that something else may have been at work."

Now my first thought was that this image was a case of photoshop with regards to the 

hand, and in the case of the "faces" under the bed. A search for the original
image seemed to confirm this.

As you can see, the original image comes from a 1902 Christmas card. And sure enough, a
closer look reveals no hand and no faces. 

This took literally no longer than three minutes and didn't require any special skills, just Google, and a curious mind. Being well informed shouldn't optional it should be mandatory. And when you have literally the largest source of information at your fingertips, you have no excuse being anything else.

A New Low. Why Over Enthusiastic Believers Are Damaging To The Paranormal Community.

Anyone who has recently visited a paranormal page or joined a paranormal group on Facebook probably knows that the standard of what is being presented as "evidence" there is incredibly low. I believe this low standard of evidence, more correctly described as data, and the refusal by some of these pages to countenance any contrary positions is seriously damaging to the credibility of paranormal research, which let's face it, isn't exactly in good standing anyway. The problem is that these pages are some people's only experience with actual proposed paranormal data, if the idea is promoted that well understood photographic anomalies and cases of pareidolia represent paranormal phenomena if  data that supports the paranormal is out there it will be buried under a mountain of easily dismissed rubbish.

Here're a couple of examples from a page I visited this morning. I find the fact that reasonable adults are passing this off as paranormal phenomena extremely troubling.

1. No trouble in Little China.

The poster (who is also the page admin) claimed this was "A ghost manifestation through steam." Sorry but all I see is steam coming off plates of hot food, to present this as paranormal in any way shape or form strikes me as utterly desperate. This doesn't even require a modicum of research to dismiss, anyone who has eaten a hot meal can dismiss this out of hand. I think this maybe the weakest example of "evidence" for the paranormal I've ever encountered, and that is really saying something. Example two is slightly trickier (and I stress "slightly" here).

2. Blurred Lines. 

The proposed ghost on the right side of the photo, this an effect caused by an individual moving while the camera shutter is open, the effect is more extreme the longer the shutter is open or more accurately the slower the shutter speed. Look at the example below and ask yourself how long until this is posted on a Facebook paranormal page as evidence that piano players have "ghost arms"?

3. A mist opportunity.

Perhaps the most ubiquitous form of paranormal photograph on these pages is the mysterious "mist" photograph. We are told by the poster that the below example was taken as he "...stepped onto my patio to take a picture of the snow on my neighbor's tree to send to my sisters in Miami...."

 Hmmm.... Let's unpack this. So he wanted to photograph the snow, so presumably, it was a cold evening. Meaning that it is likely that the photographers breath would be visible, The warm breath expelled is likely to be warmer than the cool air into which it is released, causing it to rise and obscure the camera's lens. Add to that the effect of the light from the flash highlighting the condensed breath... and voilà... there's your mist. 

These are just three examples from one page, there are hundreds of pages just the same or very similar, offering "evidence" that is just as weak and easily dismissed. Of course, people are posting contrary views and rational explanations, on these three photos, without exception, these explanations were immediately deleted and the posters blocked.

The individual/individuals doing this may think they are protecting their views and beliefs, but all they are really doing is creating an insular network of believers with a zero-level standard of evidence and critical thinking. All that serves to do is make the views of the whole community seem laughable and unworthy of legitimate investigation.

Until believers start to separate the wheat from the mountains of chaff, very few in mainstream  science will believe there was ever any wheat there to begin with....

The Dangers of Wishful Thinking.

By Rob Lea.

Ever since The Secret became a massive seller, the self-help market has been flooded with "mind-over matter" philosophy espousing books. These books claim to teach the reader how to receive gifts from a variety of mysterious forces, simply by wanting them enough.  

E^2 by Pam Grout is one such book which claims to contain experiments that allow the reader to "prove" that their mind shape shapes reality. Here is a list of principles given by Grout upon which this method is based.

"1. There is an invisible energy force or field of infinite possibilities.

2. You impact the field and draw from it according to your beliefs and expectations.

3. You, too, are a field of energy.

4. Whatever you focus on expands.

5. Your connection to the field provides accurate and unlimited guidance.

6. Your thoughts and consciousness impact matter.

7. Your thoughts and consciousness provide the scaffolding for your physical body.

8. You are connected to everything and everyone else in the universe.

9. The universe is limitless, abundant, and strangely accommodating.

Among other things, it teaches people how to drop poundage by doing nothing but changing the focus of their thoughts."-http://pamgrout.com/e-squared/ 

There is no suggestion here, or even a hint, of what mechanism is responsible for transferring ones thoughts to the matter which one desires to alter. Also notice the liberal use of the word "energy". Scientists have something very specific in mind when using the term "energy" it is in short, the capacity in a system to do work, it is a measurable feature of that system. There are many forms of energy, but the description above seems to conform with the New Age definition of energy, which is used as a place holder in lieu of explanation.

The concept that "thoughts and consciousness impact matter." is something I will address when I focus on the dangers of this way of thinking. But suffice to say until then this primacy of mind is quite easily disproved by the fact that physical influences on the brain alter the mind. Think of the effects that hallucinogens can have upon the mind, for instance. Experiments mapping neurological changes in the brain would also suggest that matter takes precedence over mind.

The following review, graded as most useful on Amazon.co.uk,£ highlights some of the ways in which believers in such nonsense fail in their justifications for these principles and the ultimate cruelty of "mind over matter" beliefs. I understand that this is just one person's opinion, but it is quite demonstrative of the way people who support this kind of thinking justify their beliefs. http://www.amazon.com/review/RV1V6EUXU7RRT/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#RV1V6EUXU7RRT

From the review it's clear to see that when the supposed "proofs" manifest they are quite mundane, such as receiving tickets for an event.  

"Experiment #1 The Dude Abides Principle: I got a ticket to see Eckhat Tolle and Deepak Chopra at the Chopra Center in Carlsbad, California. How cool is that!!"

It maybe "cool", but it is not at all extraordinary if the said tickets were ordered and paid for! The reviewer fails to mention how apropos of nothing these tickets actually are. It seems like a case of making an everyday event extraordinary simply to suit purpose.

"Experiment #5 The Dear Abby: I asked God and my Angels for guidance on how to make my business more succesful, and what I got at the next morning was a bunch of creative ideas, and something made me yell YES!!"
The reviewer cites as further evidence coming up with ideas to improve their business, if this is an issue that has been on the reviewers mind, then it is likely they will eventually have some ideas which seem productive. Again there is no reason to imagine that some mysterious external force was responsible. Also we can't consider this extraordinary in anyway as we are not told if these ideas were actually successful or not.

"Experiment #7 The Jenny Craig: I lost 1 pound by just thinking every zip of water would clean my organism."

In this case the Jenny Craig is a diet, if the reviewer is already on a diet then it seems likely they are, at very least, making some effort to control what they eat. So how can we possibly attribute weight loss to be due to how one "thinks" about water.

"Experiment #8 The 101 Dalmatians: The friend I was thinking about and sending lots of blessings and happiness, rarely posts comments in Facebook, however at the second day of my experiment, she posted a picture of her beautiful growing vegetable garden and expressed how happy she was about it. That same night I was watching a movie and it turned out it was filmed in Verona,Italy; the city this friend is from."
Again, there's nothing here that can be attributed to anymore than coincidence. If the friends garden had somehow been destroyed and then miraculously recovered after the start of experiment... that would be more convincing. One can only assume that this friend spends a great deal of time on his/her garden, and the only help they receive from the heavens is purely natural in the form of rainwater. As for the city connection. A coincidence, not at all convincing and as below, would of probably gone unnoticed if the reviewer had not been looking for it.

Then there are instances in which the reviewer has to do some "reaching" to make an experiment appear as if a success.

"Experiment #2 The Volkswagen Jetta: I didn't see any sunset-beige cars, but I saw lots of yellow butterflies while watching Baby Einstein with my kids."

One could quite as easily said "well I didn't see any sunset-beige cars, but I did see lots of other cars" Also, let's say the reviewer had seen a sunset beige car. They would likely have no idea how many times they have seen a similar car, but simply never acknowledged the fact, because it simply hadn't been suggested to them that they should. 
And there are instances in which the reviewer blames themselves for the failure of these methods: 

"Experiment #4 The Abracadabra: What I learned from this experiment is that you have to be specific when asking for something to manifest. I focused on getting $ 5,000 but I didn't specify if I wanted them in cash of check, so what I got was a spam e-mail with a picture of lots of bills a huge sign " Win $ 5,000" in the bottom of the e-mail."

This highlights the cruelty of those who propose this way of thinking. Anything that the reviewer does not achieve is not evidence that this nonsense doesn't work. No. They didn't want it enough! They should of been more specific! 

OK, it maybe cruel, but is it dangerous? Well, without wanting to sound hyperbolic, I think this kind of thinking has the potential to do great harm. The people who tend to go in for this sort of thing are either looking for quick fixes for their problems or have problems which are beyond there capability to deal with. The employment of these methods may encourage those looking for a quick fix not to seek professional help for their problems. 

This is especially troubling in the case of serious medical conditions.

This book is being promoted on pages such as this (www.facebook.com/HealYourLife?hc_location=stream), on Facebook, in conjunction with accounts of how thinking such as this aided in the recovery of cancer. 

"When Louise Hay first heard that by changing your thinking your could change your life my life changed forever. This is the revelation she used to overcome cancer and to create the life she really wanted which was a total turn around from the life she had during the first 50 years of her life."

Now, I don't know if Louise Hay is a real person, or if she had cancer. But I would seriously doubt that if she recovered from cancer she did so purely through this method. To suggest this is the case is deeply irresponsible and, yes, dangerous. Oh and by the way if Louise had succumbed to her illness, according to the logic proposed by proponents of this method, it would of been her fault for not wanting it enough.

There is often no quick fix for our problems, all available evidence suggests that the universe doesn't bend to our wills, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. 

A Response to Higgypop's "How To Take A Photo of a Ghost."...

Well apparently Higgypop is a comedian and I've made a complete fool of myself by failing to identify this post as satire. Yep. Complete failure to do my homework. I could take the post down but instead as Higgy completely nailed me I'll keep it up but moved out of the blog roll and use it to promote his very funny Youtube channel. Which you can find here. Sad thing is, I've actually seen a few of his potion videos before and really enjoyed them. I just didn't make the connection.

Go subscribe. 
-ROB


I recently came across this article on a blog site called Higgypop, which aims to instruct ghost hunters and paranormal investigators how to take photographs of "ghosts". At first, I hoped the article was satire. Unfortunately, it's not. I'm going to refer to the author as HP here as there's no author named in the piece.

The first thing to note before we delve too deep into the article, there's hardly an issue with ghost hunters failing to capture images of spirits if social media and the tabloid press are to be believed. There are elements of the post which seem sensible enough. HP offers advice on effects that limit common attributions and flaws in photography, although he doesn't elaborate on prevention methods. What my issue with the post is, no amount of ghost photography will ever constitute useful data. There are simply too many possible sources of misattribution and controlling for these elements to a satisfactory level is near impossible. HP admits as much:

"A high percentage of ghost in photographs are caught unintentionally and although this might make for a great news story, the fact the photo hasn't been taken under controlled conditions makes it hard to determine whether a spirit is present in the photograph or not."

A high percentage? One hundred percent surely? Also, as we've never even determined ghosts exist there's simply no way of verifying in which images "spirits are present" it all seems rather arbitrary doesn't it? At the moment, sorry to be negative, but our total percentage of photos verified to contain a ghost stands at zero. But maybe HP can change my mind.

The article begins

"Spirit photography is a field of photography which aims to capture images of ghosts or apparitions in the shot, usually as part of ghost hunts or in haunted locations. The principles are very old, dating back to the 19th century and as cameras have to got better and more advanced, so have the photos of spirits. Even modern smartphones can be used to capture spirits."

I have to correct the author here. Ghost photography has indeed changed over the ages, but this hasn't been a result of photos advancing. The changes in ghost photography have reflected the particular flaws in photography of a particular generation of film. Changes have also reflected new methods of fakery. It's one one the most damning things about spirit photography that as we've moved from film to digital, full bodied apparitions as a result of double exposures and damage to film rolls caused by light leaks have been replaced by orbs and the full bodied apparitions provided by phone apps and digital manipulation.

Early spirit photography was mostly hoaxed, with the original examples credited to William Mumler, inspired by the rise in the spiritual movement created by the Fox sisters in 1848. The effect of spirits appearing behind sitters was achieved by Mumler placing previously used positive glass plates with unused glass plates producing the world's double exposure apparition photographs. PT Barnum exposed Mumler as a fraud by demonstrating how easy his technique actually was. The technique was widely adopted by other fraudsters even after Mumler was ruined. Would Mumler be proud of his legacy? Now any phone user can produce his or her own fake images at the click of a button. Would Mumler bemoan the lack of artistry I wonder?


Moving beyond outright fakery, we've seen misattribution of photographic artefacts change from people moving during extremely long exposures in the earliest examples of photography resulting in
their appearance as a ghost like after image (a stunning example of which is on the left.  The 1854 image shows the nurse maid of  Prince Arthur anxiously ensuring he does not fall off the box he is posed upon) to the effect of slow shutter speed on a moving object creating a ghostly blur (below), long exposure leading to light trails when found in conjunction with flashes and flying "rods" in the case of quickly moving objects (also below).

The fact that "ghosts" once appeared on photographic images full-figured but now appear as the ubiquitous "orb" should tell HP something, as should the fact that orbs were unphotographed virtually until the advent of digital photography. The evolution of the ghost image tracks perfectly alongside the evolution of photographic methods. Prime example. the return of the "full figured apparition" as a result of panoramic errors in digital photography (below).

Higgy goes on:

"A high percentage of ghost in photographs are caught unintentionally and although this might make for a great news story, the fact the photo hasn't been taken under controlled conditions makes it hard to determine whether a spirit is present in the photograph or not."

Hard? Try impossible. There is literally no way of determining if an image that appears in a photograph is "a ghost". We can certainly determine whether an image has been added at some later stage, we can stop digital manipulate if we examine the photo's EXIF data or even the image itself. But if there's no manipulation, and that object is there in the frame of view, there's no way of telling what that image is with certainty. There's an easy way of breaking down HP's statement here: the fact that they think it's "hard" to determine if a ghost is present in an image, that implies they also believe it's possible to make that determination: so show me one photo that has been determined to be that of a ghost. 

A big clue that you aren't going to be able to do this is the fact that ghosts haven't been shown exist!

Higgy continues:

"This is why, as paranormal investigators, you should take care to ensure your photos are taken with as little chance of capturing something that isn't really there. The simple steps below will help you take photos of spirits which can hopefully be corroborated by avoiding some of the mistakes that amateur ghost hunters make."

Helping control for mistakes is not a bad thing, it's a good idea. But it's difficult and also it won't corroborate a ghost image is genuine. If that were sufficient a measure, we'd have proven ghosts exist. 
The next section is comprised of some fairly handy tips about avoiding common photographic errors, it's useful I guess but extremely lightweight. I know very little about photography and I didn't feel like I'd learned anything from reading it I didn't already know. The section doesn't scream to me that the author particularly knows much about photography. If so, what positions them to be offering advice to ghost hunters or anyone else?

Could be a willingness to resort to utter bullshit.

"You're more likely to capture a ghost on camera if you let the spirits know you (sic) intention."

Again, sorry for repeating myself here: there's no way to assess the most successful way of capturing a ghost in a photo, as we can't ever be sure there's ever been a ghost captured on film! If I wrote a long article about the most successful method of trapping a Yot in a pot you'd think I was a bit stupid or crazy, certainly wasting your time, right?

Higgy continues that it's only polite to allow your intended spirit subject time to do their hair before you snap away. Apparently, ghosts are fussy sorts who like to appear presentable. Please enjoy Higgy's free form ramble on the subject:

"Let's say you walked into your living room at home, all of your family are sat on the sofa, you take out your camera and point it at the wall and say "smile." None of your family member had time to reluctantly drag themselves off of the sofa, stand against the wall and adopt and unnatural grin. If however you'd walked into the room, asked your family to pose for a photo, given them a chance to run their fingers through their hair and then get in line, you'd get a much better result and the same applies for the spirit world."

Uhhh... Yeah?

Moving on quickly. The next piece of "advice" is to take more selfies.

"You could also try taking selfies, if a spirit has attached itself to you or is following you then you might find that a selfie is the best way to capture a spirit which is lurking over your shoulder."

Seems like Higgy walking back all the advice he/she previously offered in the last section as selfies tend to be spontaneous things, taken on mobile devices which Higgy recommends are avoided. It's hard if not impossible to control for a spontaneous shot with a background you can't see apart from what's on the view finder. This eliminates the idea of controls somewhat surely?

"If you're lucky enough to have caught an apparition or spirit on camera that's great but a single photo doesn't tell you much and skeptics will instantly point out all of the factors which could have resulted in your spooky shot. So, always take multiple photos. Keep the camera still and take at least three photos as quickly as your camera will allow you too, some cameras have burst mode which is perfect for this. By taking multiple photos you go from having a still to a timeline of images. If an anomaly appears in just one of the three photos then it's most likely a piece of dust or other artefact. If however the object is in all three photos then there's no denying that you've caught somethings (sic) weird, you might even been (sic) to determine a direction it's travelling in, the objects size or the distance from the camera."

 Again this isn't bad advice, but it doesn't really demonstrate anything useful. Presumably, if your orb has moved it's just a case of Brownian motion pushing the dust particle around. Or even more likely, a different dust particle is highlighted in subsequent shots. Without a solid example of what kind of anomaly would show up and then disappear this section is pretty meaningless.

You know what could add meaning to this part of the post, and the blog in general? Some examples of ghost images, even some of the author's own perhaps. All we are given are some stock photos.

Where are the examples of ghost images? I suspect the author excluded them for one crucial reason. An attempt to include an actual ghost image would result in commentators pointing out the naturalistic explanation for said image, thus proving the whole post futile. There aren't any demonstrably genuine ghost images so any attempt to instruct or inform about how to obtain one is ultimately a pointless exercise.


Sources

Original article

History of spirit photography.

https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/photography-a-z-ghosts-spirit-photography/

Modern photographic artefacts.

http://www.assap.ac.uk/newsite/articles/Paranormal%20photos.html


https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-hampton-court-ghost-photo-iphone-panorama-glitch.t5814/

A Response to HD Paranormal In Regards to My Criticism of Their Paranormal Diploma.

So Jayne Harris, owner operator of HD paranormal has responded to my criticism of their paranormal diploma. Unsurprisingly, Jayne was unhappy, I would be too if I'd been shown to be selling a product falsely claimed as academic. What follows is a quick response from me posted to their site. One interesting note, since the blog was published there have been significant changes on HD paranormal's site, namely the removal of two associations with prominent and well respected parapsychological associations. It seems that HD are not members of these associations, but Jayne is. Make of that what you will.










 Hi Jayne, thanks for the response, it is especially pleasing as on the ASSAP facebook page you posted " I thoroughly enjoyed this little blog rant although unfortunately for Rob Lea it will not provoke a reaction from me :) " glad you changed your mind. Completely agree about the "8 tweets" passage. You nailed me. What a boob.

Regarding some of the other criticisms:

1. The link I forwarded to you was simply aimed to demonstrated that post-nominal titles cannot simply be created, they must be officially registered. This was a simple demonstration of a point. Without registration, anyone could simply create any self-appointed title to stick after their name after all. You could have Dip.Dem for your qualification in demonology for example.

2. Staying on the subject of post-nominal titles. These titles are piecemeal, comprising of the level of qualification gained and the area of qualification. This is often followed by location of the qualification. As you well know. The suffix "para" is already chosen to a qualification in paramedics, it can't then be used to represent "paranormal investigation". I think you've willfully chosen to misrepresent my argument here. Let's face it you're selling a completely unrecognized qualification here.

3. You claim your course represents, from memory, roughly 40 different aspects of the paranormal and scientific investigation. I assume that all these elements are covered in some detail, as a diploma requires. How did CDP review all this material in 14 days? Remember it's you on your advertisement that detail the thoroughness of the CDP review. I'm only questioning how through this could've been. I also find it interesting that nowhere in your spiel do you actually tell us what comprises the course material. How many books? Who are the authors? What is the additional reading list? Obviously, you must have prepared the course materials, how else could CDP have reviewed it otherwise? So where is it and what is it?

4. "Mr Lea has decided that in requesting a ‘Conclusion’ from learners, I will be expecting them to tell me whether or not a location is haunted based on one investigation."- Flagrant misrepresentation. It seems Jayne you don't even remember your own course requirements. The "Final conclusion" you request is separate to the 1000 word conclusion you also request, it is presented as part of your mini investigation. In your criticism of my post, you omit the word "final" which is handy as this is clearly the crux of my point! You must realize the connotations of the term final conclusion. Final conclusions are never reached in science. You should know this, as I imagine during the course of your BSc in Psychology you reviewed many case studies with conclusions and summations. Were these ever described as "final conclusions"? It certainly seems as if you are asking your students to conclude if a location is haunted or not. 5. The tweet issue *blush*. Yep. Made a complete fool of myself.

6. Regarding me calling Pastor Mike Freeman a "backwards idiot". The quote you present is completely out of context, It was in response to this point raised by Freeman that the Western world should aspire to the third world in it's approach to demons and possession. You can't argue that this isn't backward. Unlike the believers that Jon dismissed as "dumb", Freeman has clear access to contrary information. He lives in the western world where we have access to modern medicine and the wonders of psychology. His suggestion that we disregard this and take a third-world approach to possession IS backwards, and it is idiotic. He isn't misinformed like believers in the ouija board, who aren't dumb, he's ignoring everything he does know to espouse bronze-age superstition. False equivocation Jayne.

7. To be a skeptical implies the application of the scientific method to critique an idea, hypothesis or belief. This isn't a valid approach to assessing your diploma. I could do it to some of the "evidence" your group has presented, for example, the moving doll video you promoted last year in the tabloid press. The scientific method isn't the only method to analyse ideas however. I can assess the claims of what your diploma offers and how valid it is without the scientific method.

8. In the post you state ".. you don’t need, or even have to desire a Phd or Degree to have an interest in the paranormal, it is afterall a journey of discovery for us all if we’re honest. It’s all theoretical. An elitist attitude is not a prerequisite. " I agree. But I would suggest that to better understand scientific investigation and therefore paranormal investigation, if you are interested in a qualification then one in the sciences is far more useful that what your groups offers. You can't argue with this as you proudly boast that your own qualification enables you to teach this course! I'd say it's you that's elitist, why not encourage your followers to also engage in a BSc in psychology? They wouldn't need your diploma then... and you wouldn't get their cash so... ah could that be why?


I happened to notice that as I write this response, several endorsements and associations have been removed from the bottom of your site. Any particular reason for this Jayne? Your followers may like to know why the endorsements from ASSAP and the Parapsychological association are gone.

-Rob Lea, Skeptic's Boot.

 P.S- You note my blog is quite "small". You are totally correct, in comparison to many other paranormal and skeptical sites we are small fry, we exceeded 100,000 hits last year. Tiny I know, but something I'm immensely proud of.

Also, in future, you can't highlight something then state that highlighting said aspect is juvenile, if hold that grammatical criticism is petty, you have to ignore it completely or... yep... you're petty.

P.P.S- You have my permission to replace your ASSAP and Parapsychological association badges with my special recommendation. You've earned it!

Insults, YouTube "Debates" and Ghostbusters: The Idiotic State Of The Online Atheist Movement.

*This post has moved from the regular thread as I think it's so far removed from the topics I usually cover, much like my response to Jayne Harris of HD paranormal*

Followers of popular YouTube atheists Thunderf00t, aka Dr Phil Mason and Dr Kristi Winters were treated yesterday to a masterclass in academic behaviour as the two took to Twitter to rip into each other apart. The spat, which lasted the full day and seems to still be raging, perfectly exemplifies the state of the atheist movement on youtube and on the internet in general.

Here are some highlights from the argument:

This continued for hours, with the pair repeatedly challenging each other to "debates" on other people's behalf, Winters calling Mason a "fraud" and Mason responding with disgusting insults about Winter's weight. These "academic debates" they were challenging each other to were to be held in no loftier a forum than YouTube. Both accused the other of "running from debates" and bragged of "kicking people's ass" and "destroying people" in debates. The disillusionment is staggering, you're making videos on YouTube for Christ's sake. I have to wonder if Einstein's famous challenges to Bohr regarding Quantum Physics would have come with petty insults if held over twitter or as YouTube Response videos. 

I doubt it somehow.

Academia ladies and gentlemen: challenging each other to pathetic toothless debates on a video sharing site for the benefit of their already partisan subscribers.

Sadly, this juvenile argument reflects the general state of atheism on YouTube and in the Blogosphere. A once vibrant and growing scene has devolved into a petty spat over gender and race issues. Prominent members of the movement concentrate not on what unites atheists but what divides us. There's little doubt that this schism began with co-oping of atheism by the Atheism Plus movement in 2012.

(above)The Atheism Plus mission statement, as given in a blog authored by Jen McCrieght. 

The aim of Atheism Plus, was to move atheists beyond questions of non-belief in God and religion alone, to focus more on ideas of feminism and social justice. On paper, this seems totally acceptable, most atheists were fairly liberal, and I for one agreed with much the Atheism Plus movement had to say. But, despite agreeing with liberal ideas, many baulked at the suggestion that the focus of the atheist movement should be moved from the very principle that united atheists in the first place. Certainly, gender equality issues, LGBTQ rights issues and racial equality issues had a place on the atheist agenda, but should they be the main focus of "atheism"? One simply can't change the definition of a word, to include elements as you so desire dissenters argued. Even the concepts of critical thinking and skepticism, which seem like natural bedfellows, don't quite fit with atheism for some. Many atheists didn't arrive at their disbelief via critical thinking, and many still held beliefs in things such as alternative medicine and conspiracy theories, which didn't naturally gel with the adoption of skepticism.

My own position on the idea of Atheism Plus was solidified when I saw how these questions of dissent were handled. The defacto home of atheism plus, PZ Meyers' Freethought blogs quickly became a forum where any suggestion of dissent was  met with instant bans from the site. Likewise engaging with many Atheism Plus supporters in a seemingly challenging way on twitter was met with blocks and bans. Bock-bots were deployed to block people for no other reason than the association with dissenters. Prominent atheism plus supporters like Richard Carrier spoke of "us vs them" divisions and excluding atheists who didn't support Atheism Plus.

I've never been a fan of threats of exclusion from communities for "wrong think", nor do I agree with silencing people because they have views that are opposed to mine. As an atheist, I've spent hours listening to the views and beliefs of creationists and the religious in general. As a skeptic, I do the same with believers and proponents of the paranormal, except to a much greater extent. Listening to opposing arguments is rational, it's key to constructing sensible arguments in defence of your own view. The silencing of dissension and the creation of "safe spaces" and echo-chambers is the death of progress in any community or movement.

Those that opposed Atheism Plus, will tell you it's dead and that ultimately its aims failed, they tend to be the only people who even use it as a term anymore, and rarely at that. It's been replaced with the more general term "Social Justice Warrior" or "SJW". But despite its disappearance, as a term at least, it certainly isn't dead by any means. The tenants of Atheism Plus have been assimilated by the Humanist community and the atheist and critical thinking communities, for better or for worse.

But the main place you can see the fossilised remains of this great atheist split is in the output of atheist content providers like Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, The Armoured Skeptic, Rebbecca Watson, PZ Myers, Aron-Ra and Steve Shives.

(above) Thnderf00t, Phil Mason and Skepchick's Rebbecca Watson: Likely two of the most prominent voices and thus hate figures of the respective "sides" of the great atheist divide.

The blogs, channels and twitter feeds of some of these more prominent voices in atheism, resonate with bitter disputes and in-fighting, like the spat I documented above. Thunderf00t was once the scourge of creationists, his "Why People Laugh at Creationists" video series was searing and seminal, and still worth watching if you ever need to counter a creationist argument. Unfortunately, most of his recent output concentrates on "busting feminism" and in particular feminist "pop-culture critic" Anita Sarkeesian. Mason has made salient points about Sarkeesian, but he's also committed shameful and dishonest quote mines of her. In multiple videos he's commented on a statement issued by Sarkeesan in which she states:

"Everything is sexist. Everything is racist. Everything homophobic. And you have to point it all out."

 It's become her most famous quote, but it's completely out of context. It's a quote mine as nefarious any ever offered by a creationist (the undisputed kings of quote mines). Here's the full statement:

"When you start learning about systems, everything is sexist, everythingis racist, everything is homophobic, and you have to point it all out to everyone all the time. So that was year of my life where I was the most obnoxious person to be around."

An almost complete reversal of what the quote-mine infers, and even if the original context remains, how is this any more of a stupidly sweeping statement than "Feminism Poisons Everything!" A statement Mason is so fond of it's the title of an entire video series of his. Mason isn't stupid. I'm sure he's seen the full quote, yet he chooses to use this snippet out of context again and again. This kind of dishonesty turns people away from your argument, no matter how robust it is. You know what else turns people away from your argument? A seeming obsession. In the past year, Thunderf00t has made roughly one hundred videos, fifteen of these were directly about Anita Sarkeesian. Is it any wonder this woman is claiming Thunderf00t is a harasser?

That does seem like harassment even if he makes some very good points. One could argue, as her most vocal critic, he's playing right into her hands. He complains she doesn't confront him or his argument, but she really doesn't need to. Mason often damages his  own case in ways Sakeesian couldn't.

I recently resisted writing a fourth blog post about David Rountree, I though four in one year was too much, I don't want my audience to get bored and I certainly don't want to turn a critique of a man's work to personal attacks. I don't think Mason shares these concerns. As for the rest of Thunderf00t's output over the past year, 43 videos have concerned feminism (including the Sarkeesian posts), whilst he's provided only four concerning creationism, and 37 general science and debunking videos, the latter of which are consistently fascinating and worth watching.

Of course, he and virtually every other atheist content creator had some input on the new Ghostbusters reboot (as has virtually everyone else on the internet in fairness). Frankly, it says a lot about the level of political discourse when a mediocre reboot of  a 1980's horror/comedy is one of this year's push-button socio-political issues.

Various commentators have been championing the film and the negativity surrounding it as a feminist issue, even going as far as to say "feminists are obliged to see the film" This was much to the delight of Sony's marketing department, who are painfully aware that appealing to feminists and liberals and promoting the idea the seeing Ghostbusters as a political statement very likely saved the film at the box office.

"It’s the greatest thing that ever happened... Are you kidding me? We’re in the national debate, thank you.... Can we please get some more haters to say stupid things?”- Tom Rothman, Chairman of Sony Motion Pictures Division. 

Skepchick's Rebbecca Watson, gleefully revelled in the tears misogynists are supposedly crying over this throwaway summer, popcorn flick. Whilst taking about their "perceptual bias" she happily discussed how her own bias informed her support for the film.

" I love making misogynists angry, and that biases me in favor of Ghostbusters, maybe a little more. So, I’m more likely to enjoy Ghostbusters knowing that it makes misogynists angry. I’ve never stated publicly that the movie is definitely going to be great, so I’m not that invested in it, but I definitely want it to succeed."

It certainly sounds like she's invested in it, but for all the wrong reasons, she's hopeful that its success will anger people she doesn't like. Credit to her for acknowledging her own perceptual bias whilst critiquing that of others, but that doesn't make that bias any less flawed. She also bizarrely gloats that the film had been better critically received than either Independence Day or the 1998 Godzilla. Quite why she consider's these two Ronald Emmerich films the benchmark against which Ghostbusters should be measured, especially as the latter is considered one of the worst films ever made, escapes me. As does the reason she considers movies in general gendered.

" As of this video it’s rated as 78% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty good (and certainly better than the all-male 1998 remake of Godzilla or the all-male Independence Day sequel "

Whilst the most frequently heard and loudest voices in the atheist movement voiced their anger about Ghostbusters or support for it, Ken Ham's Ark Encounter opened. Eric Hovind launched a search engine that will restrict the internet and deny a new generation of children raised in Creationism the opportunity to remove the scales from their eyes if it is successful. The new British Government has launched a massive attack on critical thinking and evidence-based policy, with Theresa May's first act in power, the closure of the Department of Energy and  Climate change.  How did the major critical thinkers, atheists and skeptics on Youtube and in the Blogosphere react to these things? They didn't. They were too busy focused on the big issues, like telling you how important/damaging the introduction of a female Slimer to the Ghostbusters franchise was. Or how every male character in the film being an idiot or a sleazeball was "misandrist" whilst forgetting that every male character surrounding the original team in the 1984 version is also an idiot or a sleazeball. In fact, the only non-idiotic, non-sleazy supporting character in the original is Dana Barrett, a WOMZ! I guess that 1984 version was misandrist too!

How creationists like Eric Hovind, Ray Comfort and Ken Ham must be laughing about the "atheist movement" now. All they had to do to was weather the storm long enough for us almighty critical thinkers to realise what divides us and forget what unites us.

All they had to do was wait.

Seasons Greetings from State Prison!

Stuck for Christmas gift ideas for the family? Wish there was a one stop shop to cater for the entire brood, somewhere that sells entertaining and educational materials to help the kids grow into rational, well adjusted adults? Would it be an added bonus if your purchases helped line the pockets of a convicted tax evader? If you've answered yes to all of those questions then I've the perfect website for you.... Creationstore.org. (http://shopping.drdino.com/category-exec/category_id/172/nm/In_the_Newsletter).

Creation store is the merchandising arm of Creation Science Ministries (CSE) the brain child of "Dr" Kent Hovind* an American young Earth creationist, created in 1989 to enable him to spread the word about "the lie of evolution."  Since January 2007, Kent has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offences, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the ADX Florence prison in Florence, Colorado. But don't worry though, CSE has been left in the capable hands of Eric Hovind, Kent's son and a chip off the ol' block, in fact Eric is so intent on following in daddy's footsteps that he's selling a DVD lecture series called "Beginnings" (http://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/984/nm/NEW_Beginnings_DVD_Curriculum_w_Leader_s_Guide/category_id/118?utm_source=Category_Banner&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=Beginnings ) which feature him giving a lecture that is word for word, exactly the same as a series of lectures his father gave in the mid nineties which are available for free on Itunes (http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/dr.-kent-hovind-sermonaudio.com/id262651712).

One of the first things you'll notice upon entering Creation Store is they sell a lot of dinosaur stuff, books, toys, DVDs, Kent is in fact such a huge fan of dinosaurs that he likes to be known as "Dr Dino" which hints at his insidious methods of feeding kids his creationist bullshit. See Kent knows kids love Dinosaurs so he'll happily give them a talk throwing in how dinosaurs lived alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden a mere six thousand years ago. Sneaky. Kent also had a dinosaur theme park "Dinosaur Adventure Land" which was swiftly closed when the Government attempted to seize it during his trial.

Anyway here's my crappy, Sunday supplement style gift guide to shopping for the whole family at creation store.
THE KIDS
Let's go for something both fun and educational... Kaboom and Kabang on DVD! https://shopping.drdino.com/product-exec/product_id/95/nm/Kaboom_Kabang_on_DVD/category_id/125
"This exciting series features Dr. Kaboom and Dr. Kabang (Eric Hovind and Bill Seaman (Ha!)) in all sorts of scientific adventures. Using experiments, these zany scientists delight and enlighten children about the Air, the Flood, Super Cold, and Why Things Float. Your kids will love the way these characters teach Science and at the same time give God the glory for it all. Laugh and learn as you listen and enjoy all four of these fun-filled episodes of Dr. Kaboom & Dr. Kabang."

 Just a couple of disclaimers... Eric and Bill are not Doctors (looks like false educational claims run in the family) or scientists but saying "Wow look at this ball float, isn't God awesome!" isn't exactly science so whats the harm! Check out the no expensive spared DVD cover for a hint at the lavish production values of this series. Only $30.00 (hey, silly wigs and lab coats don't come cheap you know).

For older kids facing the challenge of High/secondary school go for the Helping Students Package which includes the awesomely titled book HELP! I'm being taught Evolution, not to mention Lies In The Textbooks perfect for teaching young 'uns the proper respect for their teachers and for facts in general. I recommend you throw away Am I Being Brainwashed.... just in case they, maybe, realise it's you doing the brain washing. a steal at $29.50 for five (four really, throw it away, trust me. Some kids do understand irony you know) books.

I hope that helps your Christmas shopping, I can guarantee that anyone receiving the gifts I've recommended will utterly speechless, possibly with joy. Remember spend $150 and you get free delivery too! Thanks "Dr" Hovind see you in 2015!


*Kent's Ph.D  comes from a well-known American evangelical diploma mill Patriot University, Colorado and his doctoral thesis is, quite frankly laughable, but unfortunately not available for public viewing as it has not been published. Patriot University claim that this is because the paper is unfinished, but a copy of it does reside at  the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE), but the organisation cannot distribute it due to copyright restrictions. Check out the excellent "Irreligiosophy" podcast whose hosts examined Kent's paper over three episodes http://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/irreligiosophy/id301355236.