Skepticamp Colorado 2010 - Impressions, Part One: Criticisms

I'm sure you all noticed I completely failed to live-blog Skepticamp Colorado. The sharper tacks in the box have also likely noticed that it's taken me quite a while to even begin blogging about the event. I could go on and on about needing time to digest all the information we were fed, or I could just get with the blogging and leave the excuses for the next project that gets swallowed up by the passage of time. *coughs*

Before I delve into each of the presentations I attended, I'd like to give a brief overview of my impressions and I'm going to do it in 2 parts. This was my first Skepticamp experience and I went into it without much in the way of expectations or general knowledge. I hadn't had the opportunity to attend any of the planning meetings, didn't know any of the participants (aside from the husbandish, of course), and only glanced at the presentation schedule once it was finalized. Initially my ignorance was just a matter of lacking the time to really sit down and give it a work over, but eventually I embraced the possibility of going in more-or-less blind and getting the full virgin's view of the event. What I found both exceeded my expectations and fell-short of my hopes.

I'm going to go into the difficulties I found with the event first... not because I want to be a prick right off the bat, but because overall my impression was positive and I'd like to leave on that note. I'm splitting my impressions into Part One: Criticisms and Part Two: Praise, because I want to give a forum to discuss both without getting either muddied up. Please keep in mind, however, that I've already stated I was NOT involved in planning the event. These events rely on the participation of attendees. Had I attended those planning sessions it's likely some of the issues I'm about to discuss would have been addressed. I'm offering them only as an insight into what I felt didn't work coming from a position of complete and utter ignorance.

So... here we go.

Wait... what just happened?

The time limit for presentations defaulted at 15 minutes (**see correction below), with more time being granted to those individuals who could show they needed it (the longest presentation ran an hour, and it was the only one to run longer than 30 minutes). 15 minutes is nothing. Many professional public speakers take that long just to introduce themselves and their topic. I completely understand the organizers wanted to give everyone a chance to speak... but I can't help but feel 15 minutes isn't much of a chance. Adding to the strain of the time limit was the general format of Skepticamp - participants are encouraged to ask question during the speaker's presentations. This allows for instantaneous objections to questionable material, requests for references, and input that is often stymied when questions are saved for the end. Unfortunately, this format also seemed to occasionally cause unintentional hijackings as less experienced presenters were led away on tangents they never quite recovered from. Presenters who read directly from previously prepared speeches were especially vulnerable as precious moments ticked by while they attempted to find their place and get back on track after every question.

If I Were Queen: I think I'd extend the minimum presentation time to 30 minutes, allowing additional time in 15 minute increments to those individuals who could demonstrate a need for it. I would encourage presenters to spend the first 5 to 10 minutes of their allotted time introducing themselves and highlighting any points they believe are essential in conveying the intention of their presentation. I would then ask that the presenters give a moment for questions specific to the introduction (such as requests for credentials) before delving into the topic. Lastly, I would ask that each presenter write up a synopsis of their intended talk to be made available to participants before hand as this might help weed out some early questions that are intended to be addressed later on in the presentation.

How This Creates More Problems: The more time that is allotted to each individual presentation, the fewer presentations you can give in a single room during the space of a single day. Running conflicting presentations in separate rooms almost guarantees that participants will be forced to make unpopular choices. Extending the event to encompass two or more days almost guarantees that some participants will miss at least half of the scheduled presentations. Both options also narrow the list of venues where a Skepticamp might be held.

** CORRECTION: 15 minutes was NOT the default time frame.  Presenters were given a choice between a 15 minute time slot and a 30 minute time slot, and longer time slots were available by request to those who could demonstrate need.  My apologies for making the assumption that the 15 minute slots were assigned by default rather than chosen, and thanks to Festivus2007 for pointing out my error. 

Football is For Pussies.

The primary reason I can't stand popular American sports is the feeling that for every 30 seconds of play time, they spend 10 minutes standing around in various huddles chit-chatting or looking at bits of film over and over again to decide if there was a foul, or replacing players, or calling their mothers... or whatever it is they're doing while I'm busy falling asleep. I'm a lacrosse girl... a rugby (I prefer league over union) girl... a "fucking do something while you're out there on the damn field or I'm not going to pay for this shit" girl. Injured? Lay still - we'll come get you after your replacement is out on the field and the team has moved out of the way. Foul? Get your ass to the box - your replacement already has the damn ball.

So... I think it's safe to say I can be rather impatient.

What the hell does this have to do with Skepticamp? By the time we hit the first break, my brain was wanting to know why I was confusing academia with rugby. As one presenter was wrapping up, the next was already setting up their presentation. I felt as though the sound of a cracking whip or a starting pistol would be more appropriate than the sound of the participant's applause. There was no time to digest what I'd just heard, wrap up notes, or prepare for the next speaker... because they were already speaking.

If I Were Queen: 5 minutes. That's all I ask. 5 minutes between presentations. Yes, it creates the same time issues that extending the default time limit would and that sucks... just... please... 5 minutes...

Make the Fucker WORK!

Welcome to the digital age, it's less like Star Trek than we really hoped it would be. My computer doesn't like your computer and neither of them like the projector. Your laptop treats my USB like it has cooties and our programs are busy making demon babies even though they're totally incompatible and it'll never work out in the long run.

Basically, technical issues munched on tight time frames like tasty crisps.

If I Were Queen: Finally, something I actually know how to overcome due to experience! Too bad I didn't show up to any of the planning meetings like a douche, eh?

As a once frequent convention panelist, I learned there are ways to avoid the tech time eater. Attach one laptop to the projector, a laptop that both loves and is loved by the projector. Ask presenters to submit the digital portions of their presentations as soon as possible before the event and charge the projector loving laptop's owner with insuring each presentation will run as intended. Presentations that won't run as intended can then be converted to a format that will. (If you absolutely must, plan to have both a PC and a Mac laptop that will connect to the projector. Make it clear to presenters that they'll need to specify the operating system when they submit their presentations.)

How This Creates More Problems: I've just asked two individuals to subject their laptops to at least a week's worth of trial and error by inundating them with presentations sent in my strangers. For some laptop owners, that's synonymous with asking a man to drag his dick through a fetid ditch frequently used as a toilet by dirty whores with nasty heroin habits. (Some computer owners are more than a touch dramatic... but I digress...) Also, while this method really does work, it also requires both a decent time commitment from the laptop owning volunteers and the compliance of presenters. Lastly, it requires the laptop owners be allowed time to insure their equipment is compatible with a projector that is often owned by the venue rather than an individual... which isn't always possible.

WHAT DID YOU SAY?

When Skepticamp proper concluded, many of the participants migrated to a local sports bar to continue the discussions in a less formal way. Sports bars are horrible places to discuss anything (unless you consider monosyllabic grunts of approval and rage directed at sports programming "discussions"). The difficulty in hearing over the roar of the bar resulted in everyone raising their voices... which resulted in difficulty hearing over the roar of the skeptics. It was a self perpetuating cycle that careened me straight into a headache and an acute sense of claustrophobia. The seating arrangements at sports bars, and many restaurants, also make broad discussion difficult - leaving one to either relegate themselves to the discussions at the table they inhabit or feel like an utter cad by migrating around the room.

If I Were Queen: I'd be hosed. There aren't a lot of venues that allow groups to use private rooms with variable seating that don't charge an arm and a leg. In fact, locations like that feed like vampires off the desperation of groups that simply can't handle congregating in another damn sports bar. There are, of course, venues that do have both the room and the inclination to donate it to groups that need a meeting place... typically libraries and churches. Libraries tend to frown on groups bringing in mounds of food and booze, both of which are substances popular enough to be considered necessary, and churches... well... churches don't like people like me... and there are often a lot of people like me at skeptical functions.

That's it. 4 measly criticisms for a day long event and every damn one of them pretty difficult to avoid (and possibly based entirely on my own pissy preferences). Seriously, the gang that put this together rocked it hard. I can't wait to give them the praise they deserve in part two.

DRIVE!

As I drove in to work I very nearly pulled out in front of another car while preparing to turn a corner. I didn't make it more than a few inches into the intersection, but the oncoming driver was justifiably startled by my movement and reacted visibly by raising both arms over his head as though he were being robbed at gunpoint. Faced with a situation in which his response might be the difference between a collision and a near miss... he took his hands off the wheel. Suddenly a number of internal debates came into focus and I relaxed a bit for the first time in days.

Anti-vaccine Crusaders, Godbots*, Homophobes, Creationists, Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, "Alternative" Medicine Clients, Holocaust Deniers, "Monster" Hunters, Alien Abductees, the Haunted, supporters of Woo in all it's manifest horror... Confronted with the inherent threat of uncertainty and/or lack of sufficient fantasy a number of individuals seem to lose their grip on the wheel. Some gave up the wheel only when conditions made them doubt their ability, and some gave up the wheel before they even climbed in the car.

The good news is, as social animals, there's always someone in the passenger seat capable of taking over those unguided steering wheels. The bad news is that the individuals most eager to so are often misinformed, guided by less-than-altruistic intentions, or Just. Plain. Nutters.

For once I'm not here to focus attention on the wheel grabbers. I'm here to ask a somber question:

How do we get people to put their fucking hands back on their own fucking wheel and fucking DRIVE?

How do we get them to stop regurgitating creationist lies all over the PTA podium and learn enough science to evaluate the evidence on their own?** How do we get them to understand the proven properties of water so they'll instinctively dismiss the ridiculous claim that if you shake it hard and long enough it'll "remember" other substances? How do we get them to channel the grief of an Autism diagnosis into proven therapies instead of into campaigns that seek to stop routine vaccinations that protect precious lives? How do we get people to value the power of rational thought? Of serious study? Of mutual respect? Of personal conviction and communal responsibility?

Rationalists, Humanists, Scientists... can we be taught to take the wheel from those who have abandoned it, just for a moment, just long enough to help them learn how to drive?

I value the loud mouth.*** I value the PZ Myers' and the Richard Dawkins'; the Orac's and the Skepchicks. I value them because they can be loud, insulting, and brash; because they're irreverent and unapologetic. Those traits have put a spotlight on the tide of nonsense that's crept up over our knees while we weren't looking. (Or, for those in Alabama, up over your trouser tops.) Simply by being who they are and speaking their minds, they've snapped a few thousand drivers back to ten-and-two. I'm willing to bet they've also helped a few thousand to see the wheel in front of them for the very first time.

We can't just leave it to them though, because there are would-be drivers they'll never be able to reach. We need to start thinking about how we can get our communities to start thinking; how we can show people that knowledge IS power, and that power conquers fear; how we can show them that reality is a million times more wondrous than fantasy ever could be. Perhaps we can best do this by taking a good long look at the woo-meisters and see why they're as effective as they are... I don't have the answers, but I have a few notes:

Woo-meisters have community
Yes, I know, we have community too - but for many of us our community ceases to exist the moment we shut down our computers. We need to remember that meat-space is as important as cyber-space. Get involved with your local skeptic community, and if you don't have one, start one. Grassroots Skeptics is a great place to start looking.

Woo-meisters KISS
Keep It Simple, Stupid. Kirk Cameron doesn't lay down a detailed refutation of evolutionary theory, he shows a picture of a Crockoduck. There's a time and place for multifaceted dissection of the latest in biophysics, and the local school board meeting probably isn't it. We need to be able to address our audience at their level, and realize that sometimes their level is a lot lower than we assume.

Woo-meisters divide
This isn't likely to be a very popular point with many of you, but that doesn't mean it's not accurate. Woo-meisters use an Us vs. Them mentality when it suits them - The Godly vs. The Damned, The Enlightened vs. The Deceived, The Naturalist vs. Big Pharma... they name us, then they denigrate us. They're not above condescension, and they're not above ridicule. Where appropriate, I don't think we ought to be either. There is a positive aspect to division, it helps to strengthen the community. A little 1984, yes, but it works.

Woo-meisters proselytize
The pet psychic down the street doesn't hesitate to plaster the town with posters offering a free demonstration, and the godbot* next door has no problem inviting everyone within walking distance to the upcoming revival meeting. They don't do it because it pisses people off, they do it because it works.

Woo-meisters permeate
They're everywhere. But guess what? So are we.


I don't have a pretty bow to wrap this package in. It's just a mass of jumbled thoughts and observations, a stream of consciousness I truly hope coalesces into something workable... something great. Help me out, folks. Talk about it, add your ideas, toss your criticisms - whatever you do, get involved. There are a lot of people out there that deserve to know that they have what it takes to drive.




* Before the faithful among you take offence to my use of the word "Godbot", please know that I use that term only in referring to Fundamentalists. I have no issue with people of faith in general, regardless of the particular religion they might subscribe to.

Of course, if you are a Fundamentalist, you might as well go ahead and take offense. I think you're fucking crazy.


** Anyone, and yes - I mean ANYONE, who's studied the facts that make up evolutionary theory and actually understood them is an evolutionist. Period.

If you've studied the facts and you're still a creationist you either haven't understood them or YOU'RE LYING.

Evolutionary facts, by the way, are found in the writings of Evolutionary Biologists and other scientific professionals not the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis. I don't go to biologists for information on apologetics, don't go to apologists for information on biology.


*** As a fellow loud mouth, I'm well aware of my possible bias.

Dilute This

Ordinarily I would hesitate to post a video that oozes such a profoundly dizzying misunderstanding of basic physics, but it seems that "Dr." Werner (or possibly an unknown woo-lover) doesn't want her baffling butchery of simplistic scientific concepts displayed to anyone with enough brain to understand just how bat-shit-nutters she really is. XanSimpson, who originally posted the video on YouTube, received the following letter:

I thought you would like to know that you will be contacted by Dr Werner's Attorney shortly regarding her video. The posting of this video is in violation of copyright laws. We are aware that you have had this video up since March of '08 however I suggest you delete it immediately.

Jayson Patrick

Now, XanSimpson is understandably a bit nervous about this. Luckily, PZ Myers knows exactly what to do under these circumstances:

"As is common practice in these cases, the answer is obvious: everyone who can should make a copy of the video. More people should link to it. Spread the word and share the information - let her threat of a takedown lead to greater dissemination of her words.

Welcome to the internet, Charlene."

I wholeheartedly agree. So, in the interest of Woo extermination by way of exposure, I present to you



I do warn you, however, that I was reduced to a stuttering mass of endless repetition for several minutes after viewing. "But... but... equations don't work like that! But... but... those particles have MASS! But... but... energy isn't fucking emotional! But... but..." This stuttering was followed by a good two hours of impassioned ranting.

The stupid... it really does burn. Though, by her logic, stupid this concentrated shouldn't burn as much as stupid that was shaken really hard and then diluted a million times...

Want your own copy? Fetch. *smiles*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o


UPDATE:

Holy shite. In trying to hunt down the University that gave this quack a degree I found a couple other gems of ignorance that have erupted forth from this nutter:

"Our cornea acts like a double-ended prism and when light passes through it, the light divides into spectral light, and our photoreceptors (red, blue and green cones picking up that specific frequency of light, and the rods picking up all the rest) absorb the light energy, which is then transmitted to the brain. It is the red and blue cones that actually have a stimulating effect on the autonomic nervous system...

What can drive the autonomic nervous system are the red and blue cones. When you think of red, you think of fast and hot, or the sympathetic nervous system - that's the red cone system working. When you think of blue, you think of slow and cool, or the parasympathetic nervous system - that's the blue cone system working. So, light stimulation can change physiological function through photoreceptor transmission.

What diseases are you more likely to suffer with when the red cone system is overworking? That's right: fast diseases like high blood pressure, anxiety, hyperthyroidism, arteriosclerosis, and cancer (make more cells) - a speeding up of the processes. What diseases are you more likely to suffer with when the blue cone system is overworking? That's right: slow system disorders like low blood pressure, depression, and low thyroid function.

Almost every disease process can be explained this way. So, light therapy essentially stimulates and enhances the ability of our photoreceptors to pick up light in a different way toward changing function in the body. It can create balance in the system and with balance comes better function."

(From the Austin Integrative Medicine site, captured by Google on November 1st, 2009: http://tinyurl.com/yezrlw3 Current page comes up 404 and her name has been removed from the header: http://tinyurl.com/yj88quo One wonders what kind of offense one has to commit to be removed from a site dedicated to quacks.)


For more video quacktastery, Dr. Werner explains how she "treats" disorders like ADHD and Dyslexia while providing another fascinating insight into Homeopathy - her shaken-not-stirred magic water apparently gives her access into "stubborn cells".




Continued searches for the origin of her degree have come up empty, though I was able to find information regarding her active status with the Texas Optometry board. Her license apparently expires in December of this year... that gives me hope.

We can just be careful, right?

Wrong.

A new study shows that HIV has no problem gaining access to a woman's body though completely healthy genital tissue, contradicting earlier beliefs that the virus was only capable of transmission through broken skin. The study suggests that the virus takes advantage of areas where skin cells have recently been shed, and reinforces the knowledge that, baring abstinence, condoms are the best way to prevent against HIV infection.

Aside from deepening our understanding of the virus and reconfirming the notion that a vaccine is our best hope in combating the disease, this new information helps to explain why women are more vulnerable to infection than men.


... and now it's time for me to run my mouth.

Hey, you feminist bloggers and talkers and activists. No, not all of you - not the rational ones, just the loud ones that pipe up with calls of gender bias at the drop of a vaginal ring. Yeah, you. You know who you are.

Remember when you were screaming about HIV transmission rates and how they were so much higher in women than they were in men? Remember how you were complaining that this obvious bias in services was being ignored because our "patriarchal society" didn't care about women's health? Remember how a few of you even went off the deep end and suggested that women weren't being protected from HIV as well as men were in order to punish them for having sex? Or about how the transmission rates were proof that men disregarded the comfort of women to such a degree that they routinely ripped the hell out of them during sex, leaving open wounds?

This new information regarding the transmission of HIV is a prime example as to why we should approach our causes with logic rather than knee jerking. Next time - sit down, shut up and think. When you're done thinking, look at all the evidence and think some more. Then, when everything has been processed and you actually have a case - THEN step forward and make it.

Seriously. You're not doing us any good, as a gender or a species, when you jump up and down and scream patriarchy every time a new statistic is reported. In fact, you're doing us harm. It's easy for the majority to dismiss the claims of fanatics, but it's hard to convince the majority that the fanatics don't speak for the rest of us when you're so freakin' loud about it. Yeesh.