Posts by Hayley
What I do
I’m sometimes accused by other paranormal researchers of being an arm chair skeptic and of “being able to talk the talk, but not able to walk the walk”. So I thought I’d make this post to lend some clarity for those who are uncertain about what it is I actually do, and how I go about doing it when it comes to ghosts and other odd things.
Six years ago I would have visited a reputedly haunted building every other weekend to try and find proof of the ghosts there. The building didn’t even have to have anything happen there – if it looked spooky then that was good enough.
Today I don’t conduct as many on-site investigations for many reasons:
1 - There are certain situations I don’t want to put myself and others into for security reasons
2 - Not all reported phenomena is investigatable (often, eyewitness testimony cannot be replicated)
3 - It is very rare (in my experience anyway) for a case to come along where things are currently happening, rather than a case where things are reputed to happen and have been for a long time.
I guess I could be accused of being too picky when it comes to deciding whether to investigate a case or not; but even though some people seem to think I don’t, I do actually visit locations and conduct onsite research into things that have been witnessed. I don’t always publish the details of these visits for privacy purposes. I always fear that if I were to publish details of places we (the WPR team) have visited, that location would be bombarded with requests for visits by numerous other teams in the Wiltshire are whose practices are ethically questionable.
Not only that, but this year we’ve visited mainly businesses who have odd things happening, and they don’t always want that sort of information being made public. I will, however, work out a way in which to share our findings in the future just so I don’t get accused of being an arm chair skeptic who doesn’t ‘walk the walk’.
When dealing with a case, the Wiltshire Phenomena Research team will look at what has been witnessed and will then try to find the most likely cause. This is often done through replicating the situation the phenomena was witnessed in. We don’t try to prove a ghost did it, and we don’t try to convince people ghosts aren’t real – we just look for the logical causes.
I would invite anyone who has accused me and WPR of being arm chair skeptics or not ‘walking the walk’ to ask, rather than speculate. Anyone who considers themselves a good researcher should surely know that before reaching a conclusion one must have all the facts, afterall…
The Denkfest Blogging Panel
I have just discovered a video by Youtube user ‘SwissTopper’ from the blogging panel that I was part of at the Denkfest last week. The panel took place on the first day of the conference, and although it was 90 minutes in length this video is a selection of the ‘best bits’. Enjoy!
A blogger blogs about Denkfest
There is a lot to be said for people who will pay to visit the beautiful city of Zurich and spend most of their time sitting in a darkened hall geeking out on science – however one word would be sufficient to sum them up, and that word is diverse.
It took me a while to think of that word; a word that would do the last four days justice, as what I experienced at Denkfest in Zurich was beyond anything I’ve really experienced before. I could have said awesome, fun, interesting, friendly… but ‘diverse’ works.
Perhaps, before I continue I should start at the beginning so that you can understand.
I write words, inspired by the world around me. I write them on this blog and I also speak them on the podcast I co-host. When it comes to the promotion of critical thinking, science, education and skepticism I consider myself very low down on the impact scale.
Yet, somehow the organisers of the conference (who deserve a huge pat on the back) felt that the words I write and speak meant I was worthy of being on the science/skepticism blogging panel that opened Denkfest on Thursday evening. When I was asked to, I was a bit confused but Andreas Kyriacou convinced me they had invited me on purpose and so I went.
Then, on the days that followed the blogging panel I sat and listened to some of the most inspirational people I have ever had the pleasure to be in the same room with – let alone on the same speakers bill as.
Blogging Panel - credit: Martin Steiger http://bit.ly/pr5IB6
I didn’t take notes during the talks as I saw many other people were doing so (I will link to any summaries of the conference I find here on my blog). However, the talks that stood out the most for me were those by Max Coltheart (whose discussion of delusions had my chin practically on the floor), Kathryn Schulz (whose talk about being wrong made me feel less stupid and more normal), Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Samantha Stein and Lawrence Krauss (who blew my mind, as well as everybody else’s, with his easy-to-follow-yet-not-dumbed-down talk on the universe.)
There were also other memorable talks, like the one on Chi (by Holm Gero Hummler) and Brain Gym (Barbro Walker) that were insightful and interesting. Not to mention the fact that Luigi Garlaschelli and his unveiling of his Turin Shroud was a great start to Saturday (especially when followed by Sanal Edamaruku whose work I’m sure we all know of – but if not, watch here).
Actually, I could just list all the speakers whose talks on various topics made the conference what it was. Sure, there were talks I couldn’t follow that well like Ueli Straumann’s talk about the LHC, and Melody Swartz’s talk about immunobioengineering – both of which made me a bit crossed eyed with all the technical terms. However, there is nothing wrong with a bit of heavy science, and I know there were those who understood those talks, and making such science accessible to the audience was important.
As a speaker I stayed in one of the two hotels reserved for speakers (there were over 40 of us…) and there was a tram ride to and from the hotel. The hotel was situated in the old city and right on one of the main streets that was always bustling with tourists and locals checking out the variety of shops, restaurants and bars which really brought to life the social aspect of the conference.
Skeptics in the bar! credit: Samantha Stein
The Gala dinner also rocked, especially Science Slam (which is basically science communication in the form of a poetry slam, without poetry) that was hosted by Julia Offe; four researchers took to the stage to do a ten minute presentation each, to convince us that their research was the most interesting. Each table then had to rate them to see who scored highest.
Although two spoke German it was still enjoyable. Good food, good wine, good company and science. It was the best Saturday I’ve had in a long time.
I have returned from Zurich with friendships I didn’t have when I left for Zurich. The social aspect of the conference was really wonderful. It was great to see all of the speakers (from amateur bloggers all the way up to arse-kicking science communicators and scientists) rubbing shoulders with everyone and each other.
It’s not every day you can say “I was discussing astrology over breakfast with Eugenie Scott, Chris French and Rose Shapiro”, whilst also being as equally excited about the fact that you met two Romanian skeptics who host a podcast and do admirable work in their country for rational thinking and deserve applause for it.
The important lesson I took from Denkfest is this – we are human and it is okay to make mistakes. Eugenie Scott told us ‘being wrong does not mean you are unscientific’, telling people they’re delusional might make them hostile and (with my fellow panelists) we agreed that it’s important to make correct information available even if not everyone agrees with it. I realised from numerous talks that there are things that even the most intelligent people do not know – and that’s okay. Progress is always being made in the way we (the human race) learn about the world and universe around us.
I also realised that skepticism has never looked so diverse.
I was very proud to be a part of Denkfest and if there should be another then I will happily be purchasing a ticket. See you there!
Check out:
Camp Quest UK
GWUP
The Skeptic (UK)
The Denkfest website
The Sixth World Skeptics Congress in Berlin (I am SO going!)
Science Slam
p.s. thanks to all of those I met at Denkfest for being so lovely and nice. It was a pleasure to meet you, and I’m sorry if my German was terrible.
Hello from Zürich!
It feels weird, but I am writing this while sat in my hotel room in Zürich! It’s the first time I’ve been here and is in fact the first time I have ever flown alone.
I found the airport process easy, but now I have a terrible headache.
I also got lost between the central station and my hotel and by the time I checked in I had been pulling my suitcase over cobbles for so long that my arm had gone numb. Fun.
Tomorrow I am meeting friends for lunch after a stroll on my own around the city, in the afternoon I will be registering for Denkfest where, tomorrow evening, I’ll be on a panel about science/skeptic blogging – because of that I felt it was very apt to post a short update via the very medium of communication I have been asked to talk about.
I will try to post some summaries here over the next few days! Be sure to also follow me on twitter: @hayleystevens
Until tomorrow,
Skeptics & Skeptics
Having to defend your skepticism can become quite tiring when it is the very thing that is constantly used against you in every argument, debate or discussion you have with people who hold beliefs – or entertain ideas, that have shaky evidence to support them.
I’ve often interviewed people for Righteous Indignation who, instead of answering the questions about the evidence that supports their beliefs, will turn the question on me/us and demand that we provide evidence to support our skeptical stance on the subject (which in itself serves to fuel said skepticism by refusing the supporting evidence we seek). You can read about other such logical fallacies in this great post by my co-host, Trystan Swale.
We’ve interviewed people on Righteous Indignation who tell us that our skepticism is ‘okay’ or ‘good’ but that some skepticism isn’t. That we’re different from other skeptics and that there are bad skeptics out there – and then we ‘good skeptics’ have to defend ourselves because of these ‘bad skeptics’ rather than, you know, the person we’re interviewing just providing us with the evidence to support their claims. It’s a bit like a game of tag… but on a treadmill.
It is incredibly frustrating to be open minded about the things being discussed, but having to prove that you’re open minded before you can even try to make any progress into the subject. If we were to believe that, say, aliens abducted a cow – we wouldn’t have it demanded of us that we prove that we believed it in the “right way”, but because I dare to doubt something exists it is often demanded that I prove I doubt its existence in the “right way”.
When I’ve spoken at believer-oriented events in the past I’ve always had to set aside part of my talk to outline what skepticism is and what I mean when I call myself a skeptic; the blame for this general misunderstanding does lay with the media misrepresentation of skeptics in many ways. However, I think it often serves people well to create this false sense of what skepticism is – the “bad” skepticism that they are keen to insist their “naysayers” demonstrate in order to weaken the argument against them from said skeptic.
I’m not denying that there are people who call themselves skeptics who demonstrate terrible behaviours and attitudes towards people who are less skeptical about things than they are. This behaviour shouldn’t be tolerated – and isn’t tolerated by a proportion of other people who call themselves skeptics.
If someone is being closed minded though, then they are not using skepticism, for skepticism requires an open mind. Just as there are a variety of people who believe in ghosts – those who act well, those who don’t; there are also a variety of people who are skeptical about ghosts – those who act well, and those who don’t…
I generally thought society had stopped tarring whole groups of people with the same brush but it’s clear that as far as engaging with skeptics go, some believers would rather tar all skeptics with the same brush as those skeptics they may have had a negative experience with in the past. When, and if the same is done to them it’s a huge issue, yet those ‘victims’ have no issue treating others in exactly the same way.
Hypocritical much?
I support…
