I thought Iceland was more rational than this

The town of Bolungarvik, Iceland has been engaged in a lot of public works construction projects, like a new road and building a barrier to protect them from avalanches. Unfortunately, there have been delays and accidents, and they’ve decided what’s causing the problem: Elves. Pissed-off, cranky elves.

Some people pointed the finger of blame on angry elves who had finally snapped. The dynamiting for the town’s new avalanche defence barrier comes less than a year after a new road tunnel through the Oshlid hill was completed — neither of which with the prior blessing of the hidden people.

Seers requested the Bolungarvik municipal government make a full apology to the hidden people and elves for the disturbance the avalanche barrier and tunnel have caused them. The council failed to see the potential quirky PR value and refused to co-operate — saying that there must be logical explanations for the recent spate of accidents and breakdowns. Some locals then took matters into their own hands; making up their own peace offering.

This is crazy. Propitiating elves for random accidents? Madness.

I recommend a true New Atheist solution, using the practical tools at hand. Dynamite the elves. Let’s have none of this silly accommodationist nonsense with agents of superstition.

No comments here, please

I think we’ve reached the saturation point, so comments are closed on this article. However, I do think I need to link to Rebecca Watson’s summary of her recent absurdist travails. Or if you’d rather, try reading Schrödinger’s Rapist and be enlightened.

This time, though, really, go over there if you feel the need to comment.

It is interesting that it is the jerk chauvinist skeptics and atheists who have turned Ms Watson into an angry feminist. It’s all your fault, bozos.

I think we’ve been insulted by American book publishers

Richard Wiseman, the fabulously funny and enlightening skeptical psychologist, has written a book called Paranormality which is a fabulously funny and enlightening dissection of paranormal claims; I got an advance copy because I’m special and I recommend it highly, and so do Skepchicks. However, something strange happened. Wiseman is British, and he published in the UK, but when he tried to get it picked up in the US, publishers balked.

The book has done well in the UK and has been bought by publishers in lots of other countries. However, the major American publishers were reluctant to support a skeptical book, with some suggesting that I re-write it to suggest that ghosts were real and psychic powers actually existed! We didn’t get any serious offers and so it looked like the American public (around 75% of whom believe in the paranormal) wouldn’t get the opportunity to read about skepticism.

Bizarre. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle, isn’t it? Since so many of us are gullible cretins, books and TV are tailored to pander to error rather than to challenge and criticize, so the population becomes increasingly more gullible. I guess that makes sense if your goal is to educate a public to buy more soap and toasters.

Anyway, you’re still in luck: Wiseman has decided to bypass the American publishers, and is shipping boatloads (I hope) of his books over here to our benighted shores, so the wiser members of our populace can get wiser still. So next time you turn on the TV and see another of those odious and silly ‘ghosthunter’ shows, just turn it off and pick up a copy of Paranormality. It’s not just good for you, it’s tasty.

I just got word that the physical copies are all sold out. Until they buy a gigantic freighter to haul over a mountain of new copies, you’ll have to settle for the Kindle edition.

Always name names!

There is an odd attitude in our culture that it’s acceptable for men to proposition women in curious ways — Rebecca Watson recently experienced this in an elevator in Dublin, and I think this encounter Ophelia Benson had reflects the same attitude: women are lower status persons, and we men, as superior beings, get to ask things of them. Also as liberal, enlightened people, of course, we will graciously accede to their desires, and if they ask us to stop hassling them, we will back off, politely. Isn’t that nice of us?

It’s not enough. Maybe we should also recognize that applying unwanted pressure, no matter how politely phrased, is inappropriate behavior. Maybe we should recognize that when we interact with equals there are different, expected patterns of behavior that many men casually disregard when meeting with women, and it is those subtle signs that let them know what you think of them that really righteously pisses feminist women off.

But I don’t want to talk about that. I want to mention one thing that annoys me. Rebecca Watson talked about this experience at a CFI conference, and one thing she did was to directly address, by name, criticisms of her reaction to being importuned in an elevator late at night. She specifically discussed a criticism by one of the attendees, Stef McGraw, quoting her and saying where the argument was found, and a few people were angry at her for that, and demanded that she apologize to McGraw. Which is, frankly, bizarre.

The demands for an apology were very interesting. None of my critics at any point offered any counterargument concerning my points on objectification or feminism . . . all their criticism was entirely about tone. At first they were angry because I had criticized a student. For instance, Trevor Boeckmann, a CFI intern, Tweeted, “It’s one thing to call out a public figure, it’s another to spend your keynote calling out a student.” (Boeckmann must have actually missed my talk, since I spoke about McGraw’s post for about two minutes out of sixty. Despite this and the fact that he did not mention my name, I saw the Tweet on the #CFICON feed and correctly guessed it was about me, anyway. See below for more on that topic. )

As Watson says, she loathes passive-aggressive behavior. So do I, and this is a fine example of it. Name names, always name names, and always do your best to be specific. It is right and proper as good skeptics to confront and provoke and challenge, and you have to be direct about it. Would it have been better if Rebecca had talked vaguely about broad-stroke disagreements, fuzzily mentioning some unnamed persons with some unrecognizably blurred wording of disagreement, and then taken that blank-faced effigy to task? I don’t think so. It also would have been a tactic to blunt subsequent rebuttals.

The skeptics movement has a surfeit of that passive aggressive attitude right now. As exhibit #1, I’ll mention the infamous “Don’t be a dick” speech by Phil Plait, which, while representing a good goal of asking for more tolerance, was turned into a flopping issue of disagreement specifically because it was all about tone, not substance, and because Phil could not found any of his arguments in specifics, keeping everything vague, and often cartoonish.

And now, of course, Watson is getting all this heat because she was willing to stand and deliver the goods. Disagree with her all you want, but apparently, you’re not supposed to be confronted over your differences, ever. You can name Rebecca Watson as a villain, but she can’t take you to task over your characterization. When did skepticism become a one way street?

Newage sewage flushed into the Atlantic

The Atlantic published a rather contemptible apologetic for alternative quackery titled “The Triumph of New-Age Medicine, which basically declared victory for the altie wackaloons. The way it did this was devious, and reminded me so much of creationist tactics. First, it declares that “mainstream medicine itself is failing”; it doesn’t really have any evidence of this, it just declares that modern medicine is built around the infectious disease model, and that it hasn’t solved all health problems. Familiar stuff, hey? If a science can’t explain every jot & tittle of every detail of every phenomenon, if there are still open questions and problems, why, it must be wrong!

Secondly, it portrays the altie quacks as nice, caring, sweet people who really, really care about their patients, and their ‘treatments’ as, at worst, totally harmless. Referring to one peddler of holistic care, the author says “Concerns of outright malpractice or naked hucksterism seem grossly misplaced when applied to a clinic like Berman’s.” Why? Because Berman is “gentle” and “upbeat” and has a pleasant demeanor. As everyone apparently knows, con artists must always be rude and pushy and arrogant and nasty and alienating. Oh, wait…no, they’re the opposite of that.

And then, thirdly, is the sly substitution. We’re finding that the best way to manage chronic illnesses like heart disease is with life-style changes that improve nutrition, physical condition, and overall well-being, and reduce the underlying causes. So what does this article do? It credits all that good common sense to the quacks who promote reiki and acupuncture and exotic herbs. You know what my traditional, mainstream, hidebound doctor of real world medicine first prescribed for me at those early signs of heart disease? Changes in diet and more exercise. She didn’t seem to think I needed homeopathic placebos in order to do something that would make a difference.

It was an infuriatingly dishonest article. Now Steven Salzberg, who was also quoted in it, has gotten a good rebuttal published in the Atlantic, and has also been interviewed on MPR on the subject.

I know that when I go to see a doctor, I want to see a commitment to figuring out what works. I am not at all impressed if they’re pushing fraudulent pseudoscientific BS into my treatment, no matter how sweet and smiley and sensitive they are. A good bedside manner is important, but it’s no substitute for incompetence.

From the land of Hume

Edinburgh will be hosting Skeptics on the Fringe in August — three solid weeks of skeptical events. Danger! All of your illusions will be scoured away, the flamethrower of reason will turn all your generous delusions to ash, the bones of reality will be unclothed and exposed…I expect people will come staggering out of Scotland at the end of August with eyes like lasers, burning with the unholy light of truth unmasked. Someone might want to alert the local fire department.

Starting them young

As one of those geezers in his grey, tired, wizened 50s, I’m torn between the cranky get-offa-my-lawn attitude and a patronizing bless-their-little-hearts when I see all these young’uns romping about at meetings nowadays. And the internet is even worse: look, it’s a literate 13 year old atheist and a hardnosed 16 year old skeptic!

I’m going to have to combine my views — it gets easier as senility looms — and kick their little hearts around on my lawn, I guess.