Category Archives: Skepticism

Acorah cancels show ‘due to unforseen circumstances’

psychic-fair-cancelled

Derek Acorah pulled out of his performance at Carnegie Hall in Dunfermline due to what the Carnegie Hall reports were ‘unforeseen circumstances’, and many people have reacted by using this as a example of why psychics cannot be taken seriously. I have seen so many people writing about how they thought he’d have seen it coming what with him being a psychic and all. Only it isn’t like that at all because Acorah and the team he works with knew the date was being cancelled and made the informed decision to cancel it.

Acorah’s booking agent Brian Shaw told The Mirror

“Why the theatre have used the words ‘unforeseen circumstances’ I don’t know. You couldn’t make it up – it’s an old music hall joke. We transferred the date more than a week ago to the Adam Smith Theatre in Kirkcaldy for September 11. All tickets will be transferable and still be valid. It made more sense to do that due to the other upcoming dates on Derek’s tour and for personal reasons.”

I think people are right to talk about Psychics, their failings, and when the evidence for their claims is lacking, but this isn’t one of those times. It’s embarrassing to see the number of people who are sharing this story on Social Media sites without even bothering to read past the headline and opening paragraph.

flattr this!

Walking the walk

question everything

The idea of working in unity with those who believe in weird stuff creeps some non-believers right out. I know this as many people have told me exactly that after listening to the podcast I co-host where we talk to people who believe in weird things. I’m often told by people who are non-believers that they’d find it too infuriating, or that they’re just not interesting in hearing ‘the other side’ of the argument. One person even told me that they were ‘intolerant’ of those beliefs. That last one blew my mind because believers aren’t like dairy products, but I get that for some people accepting people as people rather than as a set of belief systems that cannot be tolerated is difficult or not desired, so each to their own.

Then I see people who talk about wanting to work with paranormal communities and believers to achieve mutual goals and I get excited because that’s totally my scene, yet it rarely pans out as an honest desire to bridge the void between believers and non-believers, turning out instead to be about telling believers how they should change how they feel about certain subjects or how being skeptical is the right way, and the other ways are wrong. There is nothing honorable about that. It can, and often does, turn into a preachy and patronising mess.

Much can be gained through the promotion of critical thinking, but a huge mistake is made when non-believers treat believers as though they’re ignorant or stupid. This is rarely the case. Often non-believers will talk about the importance of tone and language, and point out that you should always attack the argument and not the person, but then in the next sentence dismiss so many potential allies because they fail to realise that attacking the belief or argument is sometimes as good as attacking the person as our beliefs are a big part of who we are and how we define ourselves. This is especially a problem when snarky or dismissive language is used. I don’t think this is always done intentionally though, because  those I have observed acting this way always seem surprised and shocked when believers lash out in response. I was on the receiving end of dismissive and assumptive behaviour of fellow non-believers when I wrote about Will Storr’s interview with James Randi, and non-believers who attacked me and insulted me have yet to apologise. I can only try to imagine what it would be like if they attacked something very important to me in the same way.

Most believers I encounter and work with have a mutual desire to work out the right answers to questions brought about by paranormal experiences and claims. Treating them like nervous dogs who are going to run away with their tail between their legs if you don’t speak to them nicely isn’t going to work. If people want to work with paranormal communities they need to be able to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Sadly, it seems the willingness to actually do this is often lacking.

flattr this!

Please stop calling our guests “mad”.

Be Reasonable Logo

The people we interview on the Be Reasonable podcast often share ideas and beliefs that are way out there. I get that. There are occasions during the interviews where I sit in stunned silence wondering how to proceed with the next question. It’s a bit of adventure really, because you never know what claim someone is going to come out with and me and Marsh can’t challenge them all successfully because we don’t know everything about all paranormal and pseudo-scientific subjects. This is what the show is about though, that is what is at the core of the Be Reasonable podcast; laying ideas on the table to be explored with genuine-yet-skeptical curiosity.

It isn’t everybody’s cup of tea though, and we’ve had a number of comments left in different places telling us we’re too soft on our guests, that we don’t challenge them enough, or that we’re failing as skeptics by doing so. I disagree but I do understand where these commenters are coming from with this feedback and I understand that for some people listening to our guests talk about their strange beliefs unchallenged can be a frustrating experience. We realised from the very beginning that this podcast wasn’t going to be something that everybody enjoyed, but the majority of our feedback has been positive, with many people telling us how although they find episodes difficult to listen to in places, they come away having learnt something.

I can appreciate where they’re coming from too – I can’t speak for Marsh here, but when we came away from the Episode Two interview with Michael Wilmore of the Flat Earth Society I had learnt so much that I would never have learnt otherwise. It was (and is) fascinating to learn about a particular world view I’ve never encountered before, even if it is frustrating to hear someone making what I consider to be huge mistakes with their logic…

Does that make them crazy, though? Does someone arriving at a different conclusion about a subject than you or I have make them “mad”? Not necessarily. I mean, there’s a chance that all of us could have some form of a mental health disorder to deal with at some stage in our life, and someone who believes in, say, psychics could be one of those people with such a disorder. Yet one of the first things rational thinkers learn is ‘correlation does not equate causation’, so I find it very strange to see some of our guests being referred to as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’, nutcases’, and more on a regular basis. It seems such an irrational and reactionary thing to write in response to the podcast episodes. It is also quite offensive, but more on that later.

While there are mental health disorders that cause people to think others are out to get them or that can cause people to hear voices, health disorders that cause people to hear noises or see things, and psychological conditions that can convince people they’re psychic or that they’ve been abducted by aliens, it’s important to remember that not every person who believes in such things is automatically mentally ill. So, please stop calling out guests mad?

As many readers of my blog know, I used to believe in ghosts, psychics and more. I had a really interesting experience during a seance once where I physically felt what was described as psychic energy. This experience was caused by a mixture of expectation, the power of suggestion and desperation on my part to experience something and had you spoken to me all those years ago I would have sworn on my life that I felt the psychic energy. That didn’t mean I was mad. I just came to a different logical conclusion about what I experienced than I would today.

The casual manner in which people sometimes refer to the guests of Be Reasonable as ‘mad’ or ‘crazy’ is alarming and offensive, and it’s a behaviour I would see often when I was a believer, from people who didn’t want to offer the time of day to somebody with an opposing world view to their own. Although I don’t necessarily agree with their ideas and beliefs I still have a lot of respect for all of our guests for giving up their time for what they know is a skeptical podcast, which I imagine must be a bit of a daunting thing to agree to do. These are people who don’t deserve to be belittled because their ideas aren’t mainstream…

…and even if they were dealing with a mental health problem, I don’t think that the use of words such as ‘mad’, ‘crazy’, ‘nutcase’, ‘loopy’ and so on actually adds anything to the conversation. It’s combative and dismissive language. To call someone you disagree with ‘crazy’ or ‘mad’ is  hugely insensitive and stigmatizing too.

So, please stop calling our guests mad.

flattr this!

What about us? Invisibility and why enough is enough.

There was once a moment when I thought really long and hard before I finally realised that I couldn’t remember what it was like to have no hearing impairment. The realisation made me sad because it felt like I’d lost something very special, but it also helped me come to terms with the fact that roughly half of my ability to hear had been destroyed by a series of growths that had gone undetected deep within my ear.

When it was revealed just how much damage had been done I realised that things wouldn’t change drastically, but that they would change. I was right. I think I probably unintentionally ignore people about Five times a day, say ‘what?’ about Ten, almost punch people who have approached me from behind without me hearing them too often, and nearly get hit by those cars with practically silent engines at least a couple of times a week.

I don’t expect people who have never experienced hearing loss to understand what it is like. I’m often asked what it is like and the best way I can describe it is to put noise cancelling headphones on one ear, leave the other exposed while all you can hear through the covered ear is the blood rushing through your head. That’s what I hear. Also, when people speak to me or I hear a noise it often seems like it’s on my left hand side when it might not be, because my left ear has to ‘make up’ for my right ear.

People often think that I’m stupid because I haven’t answered their question, or have answered a completely different question because I didn’t hear them properly. I often feel stupid as a result too, even though I’m not and I feel incredibly awkward when I have to explain the issue. There are also some social situations that are made very difficult when you have hearing loss. Being in a loud pub or club means that conversation becomes very difficult – if I ever stare at your face it’s because I’m reading your lips so I can hear what you’re saying. When people realise this they over emphasise their words and I can no longer read what they’re saying. I also get shouted at a lot, which is just rude.

Also, I no longer go to the cinema because people making noises around me make it difficult to hear what is happening on the screen, and the same goes for sitting in the audience at a conference too. When people start to talk or whisper behind me it isn’t just a bit distracting… it’s totally distracting.

Recently my friend Chris wrote about his negative experiences at a Secularist conference where the needs of him and others were not considered or met. Chris has total vision impairment. I was really sad to hear about this happening to him and the other attendees, but really pleased to discover that the organisers are going to work to improve things. I met  Chris at QEDcon in April this year and after the conference we traveled by train together to the city of Bath, and it was quite interesting to learn more about his experiences as someone with vision impairment in society. It made me realise that even a simple train journey was a completely different experience for the two of us.

I also got a chance to play a game on his phone that is purely audio, designed so that those with vision impairments can do everyday things like playing games and use iPhones. It was a really interesting experience and I totally sucked at it but it clued me in to a world around us that is slowly realising that it is inhabited with people who have varying needs, but we’re not quite there yet. I have come to learn over the years that conferences and public talks are just one place where needs are often not met, through a series of frustrating personal experiences and anecdotes.

There are really simple things that many event organisers fail to do because they simply don’t consider them… and I find it increasingly difficult to accept that such a failure of consideration is okay. Examples of problems include friends and acquaintances of mine who use wheelchairs arriving at a venue for a Skeptics in the Pub talk only to discover three flights of stairs between them and the event and, as a result, deciding to never attend again. I have friends with severe food allergies who get treated as though they’re being difficult when they point out they can’t eat any of the food supplied by the event – even when they’ve paid for it, and I recall vividly a friend being told he couldn’t speak at a conference because of his mental health issues as the organisers thought it was best if he stayed at home. For fucking real. 

These may seem like huge failures, but they’re simple things to get wrong and so many people get them wrong when organising an event and not considering the basic needs of the people in the audience – like ‘can people get into the rooms?’, ‘Have we provided our program in large print?’ ‘Could people with hearing aids benefit from the use of a hearing induction loop system?’ or ‘Can they use the website for booking?’.

‘Wait what? A website?’ Yes. Websites can be a nightmare to navigate for people with vision impairment who use audio software to read the web. If the website has sloppy coding the audio software will often read that coding aloud. If you don’t add descriptions and titles to your images and instead keep their titles as ‘IMG2333564576543465.png’ then it will read that aloud. If you do not make links easy to identify, then they will be confusing, and if you don’t put in captcha images with easy to hear audio alternatives then people with vision impairments are not going to be able to use them. It’s actually very disappointing and mind blowing just how many websites are user-unfriendly. It’s also not just shocking – it’s discrimination. If your website isn’t user-friendly, if your event is not user-friendly, you are discriminating against people.

Personally, I have spoken at conferences or events where the audience did not get provided with a microphone during a Q&A which makes it very difficult for a person with hearing impairment to hear what is being said. A number of times I had told the organisers prior to the event this would be a problem, but they didn’t get a second microphone because it was too difficult. Yes. My hearing impairment was too difficult to cater to because microphones are rare items, apparently… On a number of other occasions at Skeptics in the Pub events I have had to deliver talks to large audiences with no microphone, and due to the ENT surgery I had I can’t talk for long periods of time – let alone shout. This actually has health implications and now I refuse to deliver a talk if there is no microphone provided and it makes me seem like the one being awkward or difficult.

These are just a few of the simple things that conference organisers should consider when planning their events. There’s so much talk within skeptical communities about inclusiveness and making people feel welcomed, but it often seems that this stops short of those who have vision, hearing or mobility impairments and more. I’m only partially deaf and don’t have as bad an experience as other might, but my experiences have certainly opened my eyes up to the frustrating situations at events not designed for everybody.

I understand that it can be difficult to accommodate to the needs of everybody, and there are cost implications – yet I’d rather attend an event that tried, rather than one that simply didn’t think it was important enough. By the way, Cornell University have a great approach to accessibly at their events and even have a PDF checklist people can download to help when making these considerations.

flattr this!