Tag Archives: Science

Fact checking on Twitter

This blog post is going to make me sound really boring but I can live with that because I believe that what I’m going to write about is a valid point. As I checked my Twitter feed this morning I noticed a Tweet from the QI Elves claiming:

“There are about 75,000,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand in the world.”

There was no source associated with this tweet so I asked them how they knew and got no reply back from them. I did a bit of searching around online and found a calculation that worked out roughly the number of grains of sand on the beaches of the world. You can find the equation here.

Hardly the ‘grains of sand in the world’ like the Twitter account of the QI elves suggested, right? The equation doesn’t take into consideration sand pits in back gardens, sand used as a building material, deserts, fish tanks and numerous other places. They’ve misrepresented facts.

On the QI website they say of their Twitter feed:

QI has a Twitter feed, which feeds 260,053 followers (at the last count) a feast of the fascinating every day of the year.

It’s a shame that the ‘feast’ they describe isn’t always factually correct. QI is prided by many who watch it as an intelligent, engaging and interesting show, is it so bad that it should be held accountable for it’s accuracy when it comes to the use of social media to engage with the public? The Show was formed…

…by long-established comedy producer John Lloyd and publishing impresario John Mitchinson, when they both realised that more needed to be done to address the lack of interestingness in the world. Or rather the general lack of awareness that everything is interesting if looked at in the right way.

Surely the right way is the accurate way? The ‘not misrepresented’ way? The way in which things are ‘checked for accuracy before being presented as factual’ way?

It might seem as though I’m being picky here – it’s a comedy TV panel show, why am I getting so worked up? Perhaps I need to chillax? However, I think it’s important that people with a brand like Quite Interesting Ltd be held to a high level of scrutiny when it comes to the accuracy of the claims they make and the way in which they make them. Their shows, their books and their social media presence are looked upon as a source of intelligent fact sharing by many who probably wouldn’t have gone to double check the Sand claim like I did. One day sand, the next day the idea that water holds memory?*

*When I make this comparison I am simply highlighting that bad fact checking not being challenged in one instance can lead to bad fact checking not being challenged in another instance and that becomes a problem. Letting someone ‘off’ because something isn’t impactual (like sand grains) means they wont correct their bad research method. You can’t learn from your mistakes if you don’t know they’re mistakes.

I’ve elaborated that point because some people are pedantic.

flattr this!

Denkfest :)

I am extremely excited to be able to tell you, the readers of my blog, that in September I will be travelling to Zurich, Switzerland to take part in a panel about Skeptical Blogging as part of the four-day science and skepticism event known as ‘Denkfest‘ (which roughly translates to ‘Thought fesival’ or ‘thinking hard’ and takes place from September 8th – 11th).

The panel will be Ali Arbia who blogs as zoonpolitikon on Scienceblogs, Christina Rad who blogs on Youtube as ZOMGitsCriss, Florian Freistetter who blogs as astrodicticum-simplex on Sciencblogs, Julia Offe who blogs as mutterwitz on Scienceblogs, Lars Fischer who edits and blogs at scilogs.de and me.

We will be discussing how bloggers can reach an audience, how to deal with user feedback, whether blogging (through whatever channel) actually shapes opinions and much more. The panel takes place on the Thursday in the lead up to the main event that will see 30+ speakers from 3 continents provide talks on a whole variety of subjects. Some speakers names that will be familiar to readers of my blog include Professor Chris French, Rose Shapiro and Edzard Ernst.

When I was originally asked to speak at Denkfest I was majorly excited but also a bit confused as to why I’d been asked to speak about blogging alongside people who had such influencial blogs. I realised though that when I started blogging just over a year ago I would get 15 hits to my blog a day if I was lucky. Now I get hundreds a day, even thousands if I’ve written something a bit interesting. I get emails from people all around the world who read what I write and want to tell me they enjoy my blog or that I’ve inspired them…

I’ve been ‘Freshly Pressed’ by WordPress three times in the space of six months and there are hundreds of people who have subscribed to my blog for some reason or another. It’s all a little bit crazy how this thing has taken off – especially as I just blog about my thoughts, ideas and opinions and I write about everyday things and not something I’m qualified to talk about (i.e. ghost huntin’)

I hope that this is all something I can reflect through my contribution to the panel, the fact that anyone (and lets face it, I am just another person on the street) can create a sucessful blog and can share their thoughts in a way that inspires and challenges people. I’m also looking forward to hearing what the others have to say, and whether they’ve ever had somebody email their boss in an attempt to get them in trouble for something they’ve blogged about (this happened this week… it’s quite childish).

If you are thinking of going along to Denkfest, or you’ve been tempted by the line up on the website, I’m quite excited to say I can offer you the chance to get a 10 francs discount on the festival pass, simply use the promo code: T7L4HF4 - or if you’re a student use:  T278A7s

What jolly good fun this shall be. I’ve never been to Switzerland before, I hear they have nice chocolate…

flattr this!

A guide to ghost science

There are many people who claim to investigate ghosts using a scientific approach, but this is a claim that should not be taken at face value because a lot of people who make this claim are actually using pseudo-scientific methods without necessarily realising it. These are methods that can be misleading and can provide false positives.

Before I get into too much detail about how pseudo-science rules the majority of ghost research (and it does, believe me…) it’s probably worth pointing out that the very reason that people start to investigate paranormal claims can often influence the way in which they then decide to go about their investigations. The choice to use techniques that seem scientific but actually aren’t can often be the result of three things:

1 – A need for confirmation bias.

I often talk about how the very reason a person chooses to become involved with paranormal research can affect the choices they make and the rationale they use during their research. If somebody becomes involved in paranormal research simply because they want to prove that their belief in ghosts is correct then they’re probably going to use methods of investigation that provide them with such confirmation.

People who are trying to prove something to themselves or others will be more likely to use spiritual techniques such as table tipping or glass divination. These methods are easily influenced through people’s expectations. The ideomotor response, for example, is the reason that these spiritual methods are so successful at yielding positive results. The people involved in the glass divination or similar, unintentionally move the glass to meet their expectations – this is an effect that has been proven in numerous studies.

However, expectations and a desire to find a ghost or paranormal cause for phenomena reported can also influence seemingly scientific measurements too, but more on that later.

2 – The copy-cat effect

Many people who become involved in paranormal research do so because they have been inspired by other people – whether it is a paranormal television show or other paranormal investigators that they have heard about or have seen locally, in books or online.

The main problem with this is that people will conduct very little independent investigation into how they should go about their research. They will simply copy the people who have influenced them, using the same methods and pieces of equipment they use. The copy-cat effect even reaches as far as the locations the team chooses to visit!

3 – A general misunderstanding of science.

Many paranormal researchers or research organisations claim that they use a scientific approach to their cases because they use an array of gadgets that can help to detect ghostly presences.

This claim is flawed in itself because claiming to use gadgets that detect ghosts on your investigations is introducing a bias to your investigation, i.e. that there is a ghost at the location to be detected.

The gadgets that many paranormal investigators use that they claim are scientific are devices that have been designed to take measurements for other fields of research or monitoring.

Ghost gadgets

There are a plethora of gadgets that are used by ghost hunters that they often claim detect ghosts. Too many to list in detail in this post, and I have written about them before for the WPR team website, however I will touch upon the most popular.

EMF meters, for example, measure Electro-magnetic fields but some ghost researchers claim that ghosts cause fluctuations in electro-magnetic fields when they manifest (despite these fluctuations occurring naturally anyway), thermometers measure the temperature but are sometimes used by ghost researchers to monitor ‘cold spots’ that are sometimes attributed to ghosts, Ion detectors measure positive and negative ions that are naturally occurring, despite this some hold the belief that a ghost manifesting itself can create positively charges ions, also Thermal Imaging cameras simply show the surface temperatures in an environment but ghost researchers use them to search for temperature anomalies that could be caused by a ghost…

The fact is that there isn’t a testable definition for what a ghost is, and because of this, there is no way that anyone could design a piece of technology that detects them (if they exist). The use of such gadgets is pseudo-scientific not only because such gadgets are not designed to detect ghosts, but also because the readings people take with them are open to interpretation and that interpretation can be (and often is) influenced by the expectations of the investigator, or the need for confirmation bias (i.e. that there is a ghost present, or that ghosts exist, depending on the individual).

A thermometer in a room may detect a temperature drop of 5oC, but all that the thermometer tells us is that the temperature has dropped, and not why or how. To some people, that reading would simply mean the temperature has changed in the room through natural causes, but to others it might indicate a paranormal cold spot. Of course, the thermometer hasn’t told them this, it’s simply their interpretation of the reading – influenced by their expectations, just like the glass used for glass divination.

Can you really use science in paranormal research?

When people hear that you can use science to investigate ghosts they often picture people in lab coats putting translucent beings into a test tube. There are scientists who are conducting good research into how the environment around us can cause people to experience odd things they might think are caused by ghosts, and also how our minds can fool us into thinking we’ve experienced something ghostly, but you don’t have to be a scientist to use science in paranormal research – simply by using the correct behaviour you can ensure that your research is scientifically sound. It is easy to use science on an investigation simply by applying the scientific method to the case you are dealing with.

The scientific method

The scientific method can be broken down into a number of basic steps as follows:

  1. Ask a Question
  2. Do background research
  3. Construct a hypothesis
  4. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment
  5. Analyse your data and draw a Conclusion
  6. Communicate Your Results

The scientific method is something that sometimes repeats itself by asking a question (step one) of the results being communicated (step six). The hypothesis being tested can be in relation to a case of paranormal phenomena that has been reported to an investigator to help find cause and effect relationships in nature.

One thing that many paranormal researchers fail to do (and thus, cause themselves to be pseudo-scientific in their approach to their research) is consider all possible causes for the phenomena they are investigating, and simply presume that it is caused by a ghost.

If an investigator uses gadgets to detect ghosts, then they are aiming to detect a ghost and have decided that there IS a ghost in the location to detect. The same can be said of those investigators who use spiritual methods to ‘communicate’ with ghosts.

This will only lead to flawed conclusions being reached because they have already drawn a conclusion before constructing and testing a hypothesis and they will, often unintentionally, analyse any data they collect in a way that makes it fit with their already drawn conclusion. This is known as cherry picking your data and only using certain data that matches with your expectations is known as ‘the file drawer effect’.

The file drawer effect

When scientists conduct an experiment they note down all the positive and negative results so that a clear conclusion can be reached. It also helps when somebody tries to repeat or improve the experiment. This is a good behaviour that ghost researchers can use to ensure that they reach and present a clear conclusion to their research.

This often doesn’t happen because ghost researchers who use pseudo-scientific methods remember the positive hits (when a reading on a piece of equipment suggested to them a ghost was present) but forget the negative misses (when the same piece of equipment didn’t respond when they asked it to), meaning that they create false positives in their conclusion. This is known as the file drawer effect.

So, in summary, it is possible to research the paranormal using science – but it’s more about your behaviour and maintaining an open mind than the equipment you use…

flattr this!

Nonsense, coming to a theatre near you…

I love the theatre and I am fortunate enough to work in the theatre industry as an arts marketer. It’s a job that requires passion for theatre – well, no, that’s a lie. You don’t have to have a passion for the arts to sell the arts, but it does help.

It drives you on.

Any day of the week I could be marketing a live music act, an amateur dramatics performance, a dance performance or, a comedy show, a magician, student theatre or a professional theatre show – each with their own flair and their own brand of theatrical magic.* There is something wonderful about watching people bring a performance to life – whether it be a five-year old reciting their lines in a drama club performance, or a sixty-five year old playing a king in a Shakespeare tragedy. When a show is proving difficult to market, my love for the theatre pushes me on and the performance inspires me to try again and try harder and keep trying until seats are sold.

So when a friend sent me a link to a show that is going to be touring theatres soon, to see what I thought, I recoiled in horror and disgust.

Behold ‘Psychic & Science‘. According to the website:

Psychic & Science is a brand new, innovative, stage show unlike any other you will EVER see.

Live on stage, we bring together the art of Mediumship and Spirituality with a mix of logical explanation and historial facts, alongside the UK’s premier paranormal investigators to deliver a totally interactive experience for those interested in the after-life, ghost hunting, spirits, spooks or just sceptics!

Basically this show is Chris Conway (an unimpressive medium from one of the latter series of Most Haunted), Richard Felix (The historian from Most Haunted) and two paranormal investigators on stage doing seances, table tipping, ouija boards, readings and ‘vigils’ and other such nonsense, while inviting the audience onto the stage to join them.

I was sent this link while I was actually at work trying to market a superb performance by David Benson who will be bringing Frankie Howerd to life on our stage (he did the same with Kenneth Williams last season in a touching, sad and yet hilarious performance), I had posters and flyers all over my desk and as the thought of ‘Psychic and Science’ being on stage filled my head, I gently wept all over the posters.

Well, I didn’t…

…but I thought that was pretty good imagery to help you understand what I think of this show. Which isn’t much.

Trash like this doesn’t deserve to be on stage at a theatre. It’s bad enough that psychics and mediums go on tour and take to the stage to do readings for vulnerable audiences – but this is something else! A whole new level.

I’m not claiming that only professional actors should be on stage, because that’s not the point. Our stage sees everything from young children performing in front of their parents, to seasoned actors, local businesses conducting seminars to local groups using the space for events – such as lectures or dances.

Basically, the people involved in this show are just going to be using methods derived from the spiritualist movement, and pseudo-science to conduct a ghost hunt on stage, and they’re going to charge people to watch.

Not only that but they claim on their website that:

‘this is a serious investigation into the world of the paranormal. Anyone causing disruption will be removed from the building.’

Firstly,this is not a serious investigation into the “world of the paranormal” and I have submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (they now cover web-based advertising, don’t you know…)

This is a ‘show’ that is using outdated and nonsense techniques to try to claim authority to their audience. Acting like an expert on stage is all well and good, but these people aren’t acting, they’re perfectly serious about this claim.

It also makes me wonder if they’ve researched the venues (listed here) prior to booking them, because how can they conduct an investigation on stage unless something anomalous has happened on stage?

Unless they’re going to be doing that ‘summoning spirits’ nonsense that is actually quite unethical (though, of course, completely untrue and false).

Secondly, I’ve never known a company bringing a show to a theatre to threaten to eject people from the venue before they’ve even sold any tickets (which this show hasn’t, by the way, I checked).

Also, that’s normally the venues job to deal with – the venue will have policies in place to ensure any trouble makers are dealt with. When you buy a ticket from the box office, you are agreeing to their policies.

For a show to make this claim on their website makes me highly suspicious of what kind of people are putting this show on, and what sort of people they’re expecting to show up in the audience.

I would urge people to save their money and go and watch another show at the theatre venue instead. Help support your local artists, not your local Most Haunted carbon copies.

The only good thing I can envision coming from this show is the hope that the people who do go and watch it will discover their local theatre and visit the theatre more often.

*theatrical magic = when you’re sitting in the audience and the people on the stage somehow make the hairs on your arms stand up, or a chill run down your spine.

flattr this!