SkepticZone interview

Of course you all know about The Skeptic Zone, The Podcast from Australia for Science and Reason. It’s hosted by Richard Saunders plus several regular guests including Dr. Rachie and Maynard. It focuses on scepticism in Australia but also has a lot of international guests including most recently, the great Ben Radford.

At the end of this latest episode Richard interviewed me briefly about our recent staring experiment. It was a fun little chat only occasionally interrupted by overhead planes.

It’s free to download and well worth subscribing too. It beats listening to breakfast radio on the way to work.

Download here (I’m at 47:20)

Leave a Comment

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society, Media

The Skeptic – It’s Behind You!

In the latest issue of The Skeptic a two-page spread was devoted to our staring experiment from several weeks ago. They have kindly made it their feature article which means you can download a PDF of it for free.

Even better though would be to subscribe! It’s very cheap, very worthwhile and goes towards a very good cause.

Do it. You’ll feel good about it tomorrow.

Leave a Comment

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society, Media

SkeptiCamp 2011

SkeptiCamps are day long events where anybody interested can put their name on a list and give a short talk, around 20 minutes or so.  Last year I introduced my group to an audience which while small did contain certain sceptical luminaries such as Dr. Rachie and Lawrence Leung.

Below is a video of the talk I gave for you to either enjoy, or fast forward through to the end.

Leave a Comment

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society, Media

That time of the month

You know what I mean.

You’re cranky. Irritable. Everybody’s rubbing you the wrong way and all you want to do is drive a bus load of the idiots off a cliff.

It’s the full moon and you’re feeling a little bit crazy.

Most of us have heard stories about how wild people can get during a full moon. There are supposedly more crimes committed and hospital emergency rooms are busier. Animals go on biting rampages and werewolves come out in force.

I posed this idea to my kids and asked them to come up with as many questions and comments as they could. What might they say to somebody who believes this? What questions could you ask them? What evidence could be collected?

The first idea mentioned was that of higher crime rates. This seems like a very testable suggestion. Surely all it would take is a quick look at crime rate statistics and see if there’s a rise on full moons. Of course, if it actually does turn out that there are more crimes being committed, the explanation might be simpler. Perhaps more criminals are being caught. A full moon makes for a brighter night so it’s presumably harder to skulk around in a balaclava and striped skivvy.

The extra light might also explain animal behaviour changes. Do nocturnal animals have a harder time on bright nights? Are diurnal animals kept awake at night and bite people out of grumpiness? The students came up with several fairly plausible explanations for behavioural changes, all of which made more sense than the supernatural.

A girl pointed out that the moon is always there. It’s always roughly the same distance away so what could change? Some people suggest that the gravity affects us. The moon creates the tides and our bodies are mostly water. Can’t the moon create a tidal effect within us?

Well, not really. First of all, high tides occur when the moon is overhead or on the other side of the planet. They aren’t necessarily stronger during a full moon. Also, if the amount of water found in a typical lake is too small to have tides, clearly our bodies don’t have enough either.

It was also suggested that confirmation bias would have a large part to play here. If a nurse notices a busy night during a full moon it might be reinforced by somebody pointing this out. On a non-full moon night though it would probably go unnoticed. According to a few nurses I know the biggest factor involved is how many drunken parties are going on nearby.

At this point the conversation got a little bit awkward. At least for the younger boys. One of the girls raised her hands and suggested that maybe the idea came from the fact that women can go a little… crazy. Y’know, once a month.

Her words, not mine!

Anyway, it promoted a very interesting discussion on whether or not this could have led to the full moon belief. The idea of a connection between women’s cycles and the phases of the moon is a very old one. It seems reasonable to me for people to have assumed that a full moon would have the biggest influence.

A great conversation, once again cut short due to time constraints. If only I could somehow convince management to make lunch an extra hour longer. I’m sure a lot of teachers would support me on that.

For more information on the full moon myth, check out: http://www.skepdic.com/fullmoon.html

1 Comment

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society

When students catch you slacking off

So here’s my embarrassing secret. When I started this group I decided to make a website for it. Not a blog like this but a site dedicated to information on the numerous scams, pseudosciences and the like out there. I got about a fraction of a percentage into it and decided to stop. One, because the site would have simply been one in a thousand already in existence and two, it seemed like a lot of work.

The other day one of my kids mentioned that he’d been looking through it and noticed how empty it was. He suggested that instead of leaving it that way I give the kids access to it and let them fill it themselves.

Brilliant!

So other than a brief discussion about Neil Armstrong and how silly the “he was killed because he was just about to spill the beans on the moon landing hoax!” conspiracies are, we spent most of the lunchtime discussing the site. The kids have decided to research different topics themselves and write up a page on each. They may even give presentations on them at our meetings.

Hopefully they do as I say and not as I do.

The McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society website (ex-defunct)

Leave a Comment

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society

Buckets, science and uncomfortably long stares

Do you ever get that feeling that you’re being stared at? Then, when you turn around you notice somebody looking right at you? Sometimes with a knife?

I do, and I suspect that most other people do as well. There are lots of reasons why this could happen. It could be a case of confirmation bias. If somebody happens to be staring at you you file it away as evidence of your psychic powers. If nobody is staring at you you quickly forget about it.

Alternatively, it could simply be that when somebody turns around, you look at them. Your very act of turning around is what is causing people to stare.

Either way, having a psychic ability that alerts you whenever you’re being observed is the least likely explanation.

Last Monday I ran an experiment with my SceptiKids to determine if anybody had this power. This was based on a Richard Saunders video I saw a couple of years ago: Can You Tell If Someone Is Staring At You?

I chose six volunteers who each claimed to have experienced the sensation. They sat in number chairs where I promptly placed a bucket on each of their heads.

I wish this was a part of the school uniform

In the background of the photo you’ll notice a large number 2. This was a randomly generated number which told the audience who to stare at. When a new number appeared everybody in the room was instructed to stare intently at that person for 60 seconds. Any of the bucket wearers who felt that they were being stared were to raise their hands.

The buckets prevented the participants from seeing the number and from being swayed by the actions of others.

The participants were aware that the numbers were totally random and that it was entirely possible that they would be selected several times in a row or not at all. They should wait until they felt that they were being stared at.

Poor kid, we hadn’t even started the experiment yet.

We ran 18 trials, which took us almost the entire lunchtime, including time taken to set up and explain the experiment. I recorded the results by marking done which number appeared for each trial and a series of crosses and ticks. A cross meant either raising your hand when you weren’t being stared at, or failing to raise your hand when you were. A tick only occurred if you raised your hand at the right moment. Blank spaces referred to people not raising their hand while not being stared at.

Some stared in the traditional way

Other took a more direct approach

They were nervous in the first round, nobody raised their hand. No doubt they were terrified of the jeers they were expecting. Eventually a few hands started rising, unfortunately none at the right time. Participant number 4 remained calm, leaving his hand by his side right up till round seven, where he was actually being stared at! Not only was it a hit, it was a perfect one.

Million dollar challenge, here we come!

Unfortunately as the trials progressed his powers left him, causing him to become nothing more than a statistical anomaly.

My failed psychics

In fact, the results only show one hit in total. Hands were raised a total of 17 times yet only once was that person actually being stared at. If this had been an actual test I would have been keeping these kids in at lunchtime.

Failures! All of you!

It was a fun experiment and a good way to kill a rainy lunchtime. Of course, we can hardly consider this to have been a rigorous scientific study, but it served its purpose. One of the messages I am trying to get across to my kids is something I once heard Steven Novella say on the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe podcast:

Anything that can be observed, can be observed scientifically.

Any time somebody claims to have a power of some kind, it can be tested. Any time. You can tell who’s ringing before you pick up the phone? Testable. You know whether or not an envelope will contain bad news? Testable. You can cure somebody’s cancer with cabbage supplements? Testable.

I aim to be testing more of these types of claims as the weeks go by. If anybody has any requests, let me know!

All photographs courtesy of Andrew Krause.

Update! This post featured in The Skeptic, Australia’s sceptical magazine of choice!

8 Comments

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society

A dilution of the facts – part 3

This continues from part 1 and part 2.

We met this afternoon to debrief a little after being treated to a lesson on homeopathy. The students and I sat around a couple of tables and discussed our thoughts, what we learned and how we felt about it. Unfortunately none of the senior students were able to attend so what follows is entirely the thoughts of some year 7 and 8 students.

They noticed two things about they way he presented that stood out to them. The first was how vague his responses were, and how he struggled to find answers. They felt that the vagueness in his answers was possibly a (subconscious?) tactic to avoid criticism. Making very clear and specific claims are easy to target and dissect, whereas comments like “strengthen the being” and so nebulous that it’s hard to find exactly what’s wrong with. Like punching a cloud, the entire statement is airy and difficult to catch.

Almost unanimously the students decided that his struggle to find answers (this wasn’t shown in my transcript but his answers often followed quite a lengthy pause) was due to him not really understanding homeopathy, as least as far as how it real life goes. Obviously this might not have been the case, I’ve been known to pause for a while before thinking of the best way to turn a phrase but there was a definite sense of somebody trying to conjure answers out of thin air.

The second thing the felt about his personality was just how nice and reasonable he seemed. It was their first time meeting somebody of this ilk before and I suspect they were expecting worse. Possibly due to their personal opinions of homeopathy, they were a little surprised at how likeable he was. This led them to understand a little more clearly just how easy it is to be convinced by someone. They considered the difference between going into a busy doctor’s office, having ten minutes worth of time and getting shoved out the door with a prescription in hand and visiting a homeopath, who has the time to sit down with you, get to know and make you feel important.

It’s a sad fact that the overworked nature of doctor’s limits the time and attention they can give to their patients. I guess that is one of the many prices of legitimacy.

A student commented on how important personal charisma is in selling unscientific ideas. He wondered about how many other ideas that have fallen by the wayside due to the lack of personal charm of the salespeople.

A young boy felt that everything the homeopath said made sense, as long as you were willing to make certain assumptions about reality, such as 1 + 1 = 3 . If the laws ‘like cures like’ and ‘dilution makes thing stronger’ were true then homeopathy would be perfectly valid and mostly consistent. He felt that there is possibly a universe out there were homeopathy works, but this wasn’t it.

Funnily enough, one student said that the homeopath did a better job of convincing them that it didn’t work than I ever did! I suppose I should be a little offended at this but I see his point. Maybe I should consider this for the future, instead of breaking down the fallacies and delusions of ufologists, I should just have one come and visit and let them speak freely.

A girl raised the point that mention of the Higgs Boson was so obviously a grasp at the latest and greatest scientific discovery.The kids wanted to know if he would have mentioned it six weeks ago, before it was in the papers. The girl reminded us that he was using it as an example of how there is a lot of stuff out there that we don’t know, then pointed out that we already know that! Scientists are well aware of how much we don’t know, but also aware of how much we do. It’s irrelevant anyway because even if a mysterious particle is one day found that could allow homeopathy to work, simple, controlled experiments have conclusively shown that it doesn’t.

It was very strongly felt that “like cures like” is too vague a concept to be useful. How far does this extend? Should you a shoot a gun-shot victim? It seems like a ridiculous suggestion but there are those who claim that burns should be cured with heat! Given that so many diseases cause similar symptoms and so many substances cause the same, it seems like you could just about cure anything with anything.

One final point was made before the bell went. Our guest referred to scepticism several times, including suggesting that he was a sceptical personal himself. None of my students agreed with this, but an interesting conversation started, only to be cut short by time. I suspect a false dichotomy was made when we argued, was he not a sceptic at all or was merely not a very good one? Could you be a scientifically illiterate sceptic who has been genuinely persuaded by homeopathic “evidence”? This then raised the question about could a sceptic be religious, or think that they’ve seen a ghost?

A discussion to be continued another time…

3 Comments

Filed under McKinnon Secondary Sceptical Society