Post #8 The Best Alt. Med.

If there is going to be one type of alternative medicine that no matter what the test, the efficacy will be demonstrated very quickly, it is naturopathic contraception.

Here is one of their excuses.

Post #7 Clairvoyant Analysis

Here is my interpretation of what the clairvoyant told me:

Except for ‘fingerless gloves’ he didn’t tell me anything original. I was the youngest person there – most were old enough to have grandchildren – so it was an easy hit to mention a dead person much older than myself. When he said they were on my “grandmother’s side” I immediately thought, which grandmother?

He also made pithy statements, each requiring a response. Although I was conscious of this, it was difficult to not respond. This is something that psychics and believers don’t seem to notice. If psychic powers exists, why does it need so much prompting and questioning? Why do the dead only know their own initials and seem to communicate by playing charades?

“Fingerless gloves” was a hit. But why did my great-grandmother mention something that, as my mother later revealed to me, she never actually made for me? It was her daughter that made them for me when I was a child. My mother said it might have originally been her knitting pattern. I can think of several other things that undeniably could have been attributed to my great-grandmother, why were they not mentioned?

But “fingerless gloves” sounds pretty damn specific, I hear you say. Well, yes it is supposed to sound specific. I would suggest he saw my beanie, and his thinking lead him along a path of knitting and attributing it to older people. Also note what he did not say. He did not say anything about the fingerless gloves. This means that he would have had a hit if I could attribute fingerless gloves to anyone or anything close to my grandmother. According to Wikipedia, woollen ones became popular during the eighties, coincidently that’s when I was a child.

While he went through his routine, I sat with my arms and my legs crossed, I answered with maybes and kindas and clearly wasn’t opening up. Also, keep in mind I’m a twenty-two year old male. He then finished with the brilliantly insightful claim that I have an emotional blockage - apparently my great-grandmother speaks in metaphors and I have to open up my hands. How many young males have some kind of inability to express emotions and would therefore be able to attribute this statement to themselves?

I think a great way for determining the validity of psychics is how specific their statements really are. Are they as specific as a doctor with your test results, or as specific as an astrology chart? Are you an introverted person but sometimes you can be the life of the party? Was there a family illness or death, possibly in the head or chest area? You don’t like animals do you?

What this clairvoyant did was a ‘cold reading’. In a cold reading the ‘psychic’ draws on what they know about the majority. From the person’s gender and age, broad assumptions can be made. Once they start responding, the psychic is able to make more specific claims. Hits will be accentuated and misses will go unnoticed as the psychic corrects them and moves right along. It also helps when the person being read only seems to remember the hits.

Maybe if I was not a skeptic and was unaware of the cold-reading techniques I would have believed what he said was true. With the virtue of hindsight I can make estimates on how much of what he said can only be attributed to me.

As a side note, my mother pointed out that he usually does readings for people who are new, perhaps to keep them coming.

Post # 6 Accommodation Extras

While checking out the possible accommodation for the 2007 Australian Skeptics Convention, which this year will be in Tasmania, I came across the cheapest Motel in Hobart.

But it is good to know that their facilities include:

• Drycleaning/Laundry
• Public Transport

and

• Gay friendly

I guess this is important since they also offer

• Interconnecting rooms
  

Post # 5.2 My Reply

Here is my reply under Phillip's comment's section:

I apologise for name calling, ad hominem attacks are childish.

If you follow the link on http://skepdic.com/alphawaves.html,
it says, "Because alpha waves occur in relaxed states such as meditation and under hypnosis, they have been mistakenly identified as desirable. Alpha waves also occur under unpleasant conditions and when one is not relaxed. They are not a measure of peace and serenity, nor are they indicative of an altered state of consciousness."

The reason for my name calling is that it really seems like you are purporting the inferiority of transvesites and same sex marriage, though I am glad to hear you are for it.

I will indeed continue to read your comments as i find it interesting that you are clearly very intelligent but I completely disagree with you.

Regarding your analogy, I don't see how food applies to my definition of good and bad things. Would you instead say there there is only suffering and not suffering?

I know a lot of atheists use the argument regarding a benevolent god, I do to, but it is not 'atheistic' because the position of atheist is ONLY a denial of a god or gods.

What is the point on racism that I missed? You seemed to be saying that they are only words. But words can inspire hatred, just as in the examples you gave. If nose-ism caused violence to people doing wrong then yes, nose-ism would be a very bad thing.

Post #5.1 Phillip's Reply

Here is Phillip's reply in whole copied from his comments.

I certainly don’t want to get involved in some kind of juvenile slanging match. If you genuinely find my comments of no interest then clearly you will not read any comments I make. However, I will point out what appear to be some misunderstandings:

My explanation (not a definition) of intuition is perfectly compatible with the definition you give.

I’m surprised you say that the alpha state is only recognised by spiritualists, etc. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_wave) mentions it, as do some skeptic sites (http://skepdic.com/alphawaves.html). It is widely acknowledged by conventional medicine.

Your comment on racism misses my point. It is not only racism that leads to violence. Jews are not even a race and the problems in Northern Ireland were based on religion not race. It is the emotional reaction that leads to violence, not the remarks themselves. In the US many schools ban hats or the wearing of certain colours because students identify these with gangs. Once a person has been identified as belonging to a gang they become an ally or an enemy. There is no appreciation of the individual – they get lumped into a group. The same principle is used in training soldiers. There is ‘the enemy’ they are not individuals who may have families or enjoy a drink down the pub. One of the salient features of the Christmas of 1914 in the trenches was that soldiers saw the enemy as individuals. It doesn’t make for good warfare. If a group were identified because of the length of their nose (as were Jews in Nazi Germany) then nose-ism would be violent.

In talking about good and bad events I may have explained the point poorly. Suppose your child divided their food into good and bad, where pizza and chips were good and broccoli and asparagus were bad. You, as a parent, may say that food isn’t good or bad. Some food is nicer to eat whereas other food may be better for you. Some food that your child considers bad, they may learn to enjoy. You may say ‘it’s all just food’. I know left-brain thinkers dislike analogies but surely you can see my point here? You say that this is not an "atheistic idea", but I have studied many atheistic web sites and it a common theme. So much so that I would that 70-80% of the arguments against a belief in God are variations of this.

You go on to say that “…you lost any respect from me that you might have had” because of my discussions about relationships. I won’t reiterate them all here, but I will say that most of these views are commonly held by counsellors. I am writing a blog, not a scientific paper but if you talk to many male transvestites they will tell you they had a poor relationship with their father. I did not say that that being a transvestite is a damaging thing. Nor did I say that a same-sex couple is in some way inferior to a heterosexual couple. In fact, if you talk to many gay parents they will tell you that they are aware of the contra-sexual relationship and lesbian mothers will encourage their boys to hang out with male friends in order for them to get a relationship with an adult male figure. If they are aware of this then I really don’t understand what your issue is. I said it was that this issue is ignored in the debate over same-sex couples or single parent families. It often is – you seem to want to ignore it. For the record, I am in favour of gay marriage.

Your last shot is really the issue here. It is a common syndrome to put people into a group and then dismiss their ideas by condemning the group. So, for instance, you can say that so-and-so must be stupid because, for example, he owns a gun. Therefore his ideas on the economy can’t be taken seriously. It is a variation of what I mentioned earlier. I find this typical, but very sad. Real intelligent discussion is rare instead we get name-calling.

Post #5 Response to Phillip's blog

Sorry for the delay in posting as I have been busy trying to get people to read the blog. To plagiarise wherever I originally heard this, if you like what you see then tell your friends otherwise tell your enemies. I will be writing an interpretation of Post #4 soon, but this one felt more urgent.

Phillip left me a comment to check out his blog. I did and this is my response, posted under in the comments for the 'Living in the Now' post.

Hi Philip,

Thanks for your post. I like your site but obviously I disagree with your positions. Admittedly I haven't read through your site extensively yet but it appears as though you are using scientific principles fallaciously.

In your post ‘Intuition’, you seem to be referring to something different to the intuition that I understand. Intuition is direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. From a quick search on Google, the ‘alpha state’ you spoke of seems to only be referenced by spiritualists, etc, (sorry to lump you all together if that's not how you describe yourself) so can you refer to what scientists you speak of that study this alpha state?

Your post, ‘Intellectual Thinking’, regarding racism was fairly off the mark. To paraphrase: what is the difference b/w nose-ism and racism? Racism can is generated by hate and/or intolerance. It goes beyond "childish remarks" when adults discriminate against another for their race. Racist remarks are often deliberately derogatory.

Racism can lead to violence, nose-ism doesn't. We can relate racism to slavery and treating people as second-class citizens. If you don't understand the difference between racism and nose-ism, you should perhaps stop what you are doing and think about the effects of racism. They may be 'just words' but they express these intolerances and if they become part of everyday speech then it is accepting racism.

In, ‘Everything Happens for a Reason’, you also refer to atheism fallaciously. It is not an "atheistic idea" that a good god would not allow bad things to happen, this is just one of many arguments against the existence of such a god. It is not attributed to atheism since atheism is solely the denial of any god or gods existing.

You go on to argue that this idea is simplistic, yet the next sentence you write says "there is simply life". Perhaps the words 'good' and 'bad' should be defined here since you seem to think that events cannot be described this way.

I would describe bad events as those that cause suffering. So if an earthquake causes mass destruction of some city buildings and things but no one is hurt, then I could grant that it may not be a 'bad' thing. If the earthquake causes thousands of deaths and the loss of people’s homes then that is a bad thing. Now, in reality, what about the thousands of communities that suffer everyday because of famine and disease, where they will continue to suffer because the resources aren't available to them. That is bad.

Okay, so I just read this sentence and you have lost any respect from me that you might have had. "Sometimes if they (children) have no respect for their father, who may be weak rather than abusive, they identify more with their feminine side and become transvestites." That is completely moronic. Can you base that on any statistics or studies? Are you then saying that being a transvestite is a damaging thing?

Then you go on with this, "The contra-sexual relationships in a family shape our view of ourselves, and the relationships we form with others. This issue is ignored in the debate over same-sex couples or single parent families."

This is ignored because it is not an issue. Nothing that we know of makes someone gay. Nothing that we know of makes being gay a bad thing. In fact, in terms of harm, there is nothing that makes having a same sex partner bad except for what they have to deal with from bigots and their asinine opinions.

Who are you to say that a same-sex couple is in some way inferior to a heterosexual couple? Based on what you say here, heterosexual couples do a pretty good enough job of fucking up kids lives. Are you also dismissing the ability of single-parent families to raise children?

None of your opinions are backed up with any case studies and I am dismissing them as nothing more than assumptions and stereotypes. Sometimes children who are raised by an abusive father do carry over such aggression, but not always as your opinions perhaps suggest.

That's all I'm going to offer now, as I no longer find your opinions worth any interest.

Post #4 Sunday at the Spiritual Church

The room was seated with around 30 people all anxiously waiting to see who the clairvoyant would speak to next. I watched as he made hits when he started out vague and, based on the victim’s responses, was able to hone in on more accurate descriptions of old dead people. When he started out too specific with his descriptions he would backtrack to cover the miss. In one instance, he described a dead person’s exact build and bizarre hairstyle. He eventually conceded that they might have been known 20 – 30 years ago.

Then he came and spoke to me. As a guest of my mother, I was in no position to express my true feelings. I also knew that if he came up with something profound I would have to admit defeat. That is something incredibly difficult to do. People rarely change their point of view and instead, usually unconsciously, only seek to reinforce it. For example, I don’t read much Raelian Apologist literature.

Admittedly, my heart was racing and I was very nervous. I had never had anyone who professes such abilities tell me about things that I don’t believe exist. It is difficult to remember the entire conversation but the gist of it was that he made two hits about me.

He told me he was contacting on older woman on my grandmother’s side. I immediately assumed it was my great-grandmother who died when I was 15 since I never knew my other grandmother. He went on to make a series of broad statements, only to receive maybes and nods.

He stopped and thought for a second. Then he looked at me and said “fingerless gloves”. I immediately said no, unable to place it with my great-grandmother. My mother leaned in and said that she used to make them for me when I was a child. This was certainly striking but I wasn’t going to become a believer just yet. There would be a post analysis.

After taking this as confirmation, he turned the gloves into a metaphor, saying I needed to open up my hands, that I have an emotional blockage and if I give a little I will receive in return. Given half a second, my girlfriend will attest to the fact that I am not good at communicating emotions, thus giving him his second hit.

Post #3

My mum is very much new age and into spirituality. She used to do tarot card readings for one of those phone services, believing that she is psychic. Although she knows I am sceptical, and unfortunately confuses this with cynicism, we have been quite successful at avoiding arguments. We did get a little heated over alternative medicine, a personal hate of mine, but the argument was halted before it went too far.

Her boyfriend is also spiritual so I have been keen to engage in discussion with him rather than my mum. He does make some bizarre claims like how crop circles are supernaturally caused, probably by extraterrestrials, and were not created by a couple of English blokes as a prank.
He also claims that the government are covering up the fact that aliens have visited in order to avoid the mass hysteria when all religions are subsequently proven false. I offered that Scientology may still survive but the joke fell flat. Any reference to Scientology should be regarded as a joke.

My mum and her boyfriend met at our friendly, local spiritual church. A spiritual church is just like a regular church but with less Jesus and more new age. They have meditation (prayer), a speaker (sermon) then meditation healing (prayer healing). On one occasion when my mum had kindly invited me along, instead of hymns they sing pop songs like From a Distance.

The church features a different speaker each week who talks about their own experiences with spirituality and new ageyness. The woman I had the displeasure of hearing told some stories about seeing doorways and bright lights while walking down the street. She also made claims about seeing things while driving down the freeway, which is really scary because I drive on that freeway and I want her to concentrate on things that are really there like my car.

Something else that stood out is that she filled the gaps of her stories that spaned years with, “I then went to…” or “Later, I…”, sounding exactly like she was reading a book. Turns out she is in the middle of writing one.

to be cont'd...

Post #2

Recently, I have been outting myself to friends that I am skeptical of paranormal and supernatural claims. Since there is only one other person who agrees with me, I have to argue my way through less-than-convincing stories of sounds in the night appearing to be a person walking up and down a hallway.

One friend pointed out that to him it seemed that skeptics, like most people, are narrowminded. They decide what they want to believe and that is what they stick with. I argued that skeptics know what it would take to change their mind. Using ghosts as an example, my friend countered that it is audacious of skeptics to claim to know what makes them 'real' and we cannot attribute our own goals for proof of existence. Perhaps ghosts do exist in the way that they are described; in dubious blurry photographs and anecdotes.

Granted this, why then do ghosts not appear to non-believers? Wouldn't this prove indefinately that they exist? He conceded he didn't know. Neither do I.

It seems to me to come down to two possiblities:

The first is that ghosts and other paranormal and supernatural claims are true but they are only witnessed some of the time and so cannot be tested but they can be explained by natural phenomena, appearing as though they probably don't exist.

The second is that they don't exist.

Here, a skeptic would incorporate Occam's Razor, the theory that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We could be agnostic about ghosts but that would be useless. Skeptics just like to keep things based in reality.

I then attested that gravity is a constant, we know it exists as a natural measurable force and as such there is no supernatural being or force holding things in place. My friend argued, somewhat in jest, that there could be a supernatural force holding us in place. Conceding that this is true, it is interesting to note that no one actually makes such a claim, yet many will claim that ghosts exist.

Since we know that gravity exists, I guess it would be fair to say that there is a gravity monster causing it.

Post #1

I felt I had to create this blog due to lack of Australian Skeptical bloggers and forums. I am a skeptic and secular humanist from Melbourne, Australia, so this blog will be devoted to those topics. Any suggestions are welcome as are responses and discussions to posts. This is also a way of communicating with like-minded people about topics that don't often get discussed as often as they should. I also welcome believers or anyone who disputes these ideas to post replies and hopefully these topics can be discussed honestly without ad hominem attacks. I myself am not formally trained or educated in these topics so they may seem informal, but there is a plethora of information out there, all it takes is a bit of time and reading. If there are in fact other Australian bloggers out there talking about these topics, let me know.