Posts Tagged "Skepticism"
How not to react to constructive criticism
If you believe in ghosts and you base that belief on ideas that are not rooted in evidence or facts then the chances are that somebody at some point is going to question you about them. If you start making factual-sounding claims based on those beliefs that aren’t evidence based, then it’s very likely somebody is going to question those claims.
When your claims are questioned because they do not seem to be logical and you are not providing evidence to back them up you shouldn’t be surprised, and it is not out of order for someone to question you like that. The ‘burden of proof’ always lays with the person making the claim. It is arrogant of anybody to expect other people to simply accept them at their word without providing any other evidence to support the claims they are making.
If your claims are questioned then you should be willing to either back your claims up by providing the evidence they’re based on (and if there is none, perhaps that should speak volumes to you), or be open minded and be willing to accept that you might be wrong.
After all, if you provide the evidence that your claims are based on – and it isn’t flawed or illogical evidence, then that is all the questioner was after and that’s a great outcome.
Asking to see evidence of something is not a bad thing and nobody should be treated as the bad guy for questioning somebody elses claims.
The worst way to react to someone questioning your claims is to go on the attack and to try and censor your attackers. Yet, among belief-led ghost hunters, going on the attack and trying to scare people into shutting up, with threats of legal action, seems to be a very common reaction to any criticism or questioning of their claims.
This is not healthy, and this is not open minded.
I have on numerous occasions been as the receiving end of threats and abuse simply for writing critically about specific ghost hunters and their behaviour or actions. The threats are normally about apparently libelous comments I have made, or about how I have infringed their copyright.
The comments that are allegedly libelous are normally the things I have written that criticise the ghost hunter/s, and the copyright infringement accusations stem from me using photos, footage, audio or similar presented by the team as part of the claim I am criticising.
Although it is possible for critical comments to be libelous, in the context I write things I always try to ensure that my criticisms are based upon available facts, and if not then I will readily admit that I have made a wrong assessment of the available information.
When, and if, I use photos or footage or similar to demonstrate the points I am making I do so knowing that I can use such materials – even in they’re copyrighted – because the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 states that ‘fair dealing’ can be attributed to the use of copyrighted materials for research and private study, criticism, review, and news reporting.
The problem that I want to write about here though isn’t whether or not I break the law when criticising ghost hunters, but the fact that such accusations are the reaction that I am faced with time and time again.
The most recent case of this happened yesterday when Don Philip reacted abusively to an article I wrote weeks ago for the Vigilantes Blog that I co-author. The article was ‘The Worst Ghosts of 2011‘ and Don and his team were mentioned twice in the countdown because of the ludicrous claims they have made in the name of ‘paranormal research’ without any good evidence to support them.
GSI Paranormal appeared at Number 5 for their investigation of a case called ‘The Braunstone Ghost’ in which their behaviour was psuedo-scientific, illogical and ethically questionable. They also appeared at Number 2 with footage called ‘The Wilton Ghost Horse’ in which they claim to have captured an EVP of what is alluded to be the spirit of a horse.
Unfortunately these videos no longer exist on the ‘ Worst Ghosts of 2011′ article as yesterday, in reaction to the article, Don Philip removed the videos from his youtube account so that they would no longer appear on the Vigilantes Blog.
Don also threatened on the Facebook group for ‘The Vigilantes Blog‘ that I had ’24 hours’. I presume he meant 24 hours to remove the article, or the videos.
“Having an embedded youTube video on your online article or website is exactly like having an embedded image – thus permission must also be given from the owner of the youTube video,”
When I didn’t react back or cave in and remove the article or videos Don became even more abusive in his comments.
”Haley (NEWS FLASH CHICKEN) there are no shortcuts do some fecking work of your own live life and then you may have grounds to comment on work of others whilst also having the benefit of a small degree of experience instead of trying to trade on the work of others. (P.S) If i was you id go seek an easier target trust me”
“learn about life before you dare to comment on that of which you dont have a clue with ur underhand tactics. Ive no time more idiots and it would a appear i have a prize one here silly little girl you need to live life before you are qualified to comment on it. You are far from qualified to comment on anything other than your guessed opinions.”
His friends and supporters were also abusive on pages that I could not see, but people who are mutual friends told me about the comments being made about me. Another person who posted on Don’s site offering other possible causes for the oddities they had captured was also treated to abusive and rude comments. With one person threatening to ‘splatter’ him ‘with a lorry’.
This is not acceptable behaviour. It’s not mature and it certainly isn’t open minded.
Threatening people, and trying to censor people simply because they do not agree with you, or have criticised your ideas is not a rational response.
Similar behaviour was displayed by another paranormal team who sent me numerous threatening emails and, when I didn’t respond in fear and remove my criticism of them, they too removed the material I had referenced in my original criticism.
Those who cannot stomach constructive criticism, and would rather hide the offending claims being called into question must ask themselves why it is they are reacting in this way.
I can remember a number of years ago when I believed it possible that people could speak to the dead. I watched a live television show in which a man was on stage delivering a psychic reading to a member of the audience. He was so accurate that it was really impressive, and then suddenly it was revealed that his name was James Randi and he was actually a skeptic.
My reaction was to say that he was stupid and closed minded. I dismissed his criticism of what I believed by attacking him because I wasn’t willing to asses my own close-mindedness and because I had accepted my belief in psychics for no good reason – and based on no good facts, I didn’t have a good argument to offer in reply to what James Randi was saying. So I attacked him as a person.
It was all I had.
I should probably explain that when I say ‘attacked’ I mean that I swore at the television. Now I am able to look back and see how illogical I was being, but I can also see why people respond to my criticisms like they do.
If you have to resort to name calling, abuse and threats of legal action in response to valid criticism then it’s a good indication that you might not have a very strong argument in defense of your claims and beliefs.
I may not have been involved with paranormal investigations for as long as Don claims he has (30 years) but that doesn’t make any difference. My criticisms are based on the best understanding I have on the reality of seemingly anomalous experiences and spontaneous phenomena. If my criticisms are incorrect then prove them so. I will happily admit I’m wrong, but that is yet to happen and I will not hold my breath.
Incidentally, Don ought to review his own practice regarding the use of copyrighted materials before accusing others of breaching copyright laws. A quick visit to the GSI website reveals two still from movies that I’m pretty sure he doesn’t own the copyright to being used as banners on the homepage.
However, that’s neither here nor there, and I’m not childish enough to use that in attack against Don. It does however demonstrates hypocrisy.
My original criticisms still stand, and in fact I believe that my criticisms have been strengthened by Don Philip removing the videos I had used to demonstrate my points.
Time and time again people threaten me with ‘legal action’ and time and time again I invite them to get a legal representative to make contact with me should they be serious about their accusation. To this date this has never happened.
I believe that speaks for itself.
Note:
Paranormal Activity 3 belongs to Paramount Pictures.
White Noise belongs to Universal Pictures
Poster girl for skepticism
In a recent post titled ’2011′ I wrote out a list of insults I had received last year. One of them was ‘poster child for skepticism’ and people have seemed confused as to why I would consider that an insult. I was actually wrong – I got called ‘the poster girl for skepticism’.
The reason it is an insult is because a) it was intended as an insult and b) it was insulting
To be called a girl equates me with being young and childish. I’m often told that I am young, childish, immature, ‘playing with bigger kids’, ‘running with older skeptics’, ‘throw tantrums’ and similar. Putting to one side my issues with my mental health that often cause me to seem like I’m having a tantrum, and how insensitive peoples comments can be – the world is, it seems, always very keen to remind me that I am indeed young, and that because of this people wont take me seriously.
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!
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbXlh1IvxGs&feature=colike]
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.
Who on earth is Hayley Stevens?
I guess one thing that isn’t always at the front of my mind when I write things is the fact that the person who might read what I have written doesn’t know me and doesn’t know my intentions. I’ve come to realise that I probably come across as some sort of a know-it-all in some of the things I say, and as though I’m trying to get one over on other researchers who don’t share the same opinions as I do.
Though that may be the case on the odd occasion it isn’t the case in everything I do, say or write. I’m not a saint and I’m not trying to claim that I’m a selfless blogger, but I do try to work for what is right. When I’m writing about the illogical thoughts or actions of other researchers it isn’t because I want to show off the fact that I am somehow better than they are, but because the illogical arguments put forwards by some need addressing. Not only that, but there are lots of people in the paranormal research field who pass themselves off as knowledgable, experts or ‘old hands’ at what they do when really they’re thought processes are illogical and full of fallacies. Sometimes these people make money from those who hold genuine beliefs and I think it is only right that said so-called experts are shown for the illogical people they really are.
That isn’t me being a hero, it’s me being a person who was once fooled by such people; it’s me being the person who used to think illogically pointing out how easy it is to do so, and writing what I write in the hope that I might be able to help others to see the holes in their logic too.
We are all free to make our own choices and decisions, but we just need to be well informed, and I use my blog as a way to help people find the information that will prove useful to them – by using my experiences.
It really isn’t me trying to show off, and it saddens me that some might think of me like that.
Oh, in other news, this week I piloted a canal boat and got a tattoo. This is me showing off.
Check it out…
