The Human Bible — with Robert M. Price

I absolutely love this podcast:

Robert M. Price is a one-off. I first heard him a few years ago interviewed on another podcast about his Bible Geek persona, and have since come across him in various places — notably as one of the hosts of the Point of Inquiry podcast after previous host D. J. Grothe left to preside over the JREF. In April this year Bob Price appeared on Premier Radio's Unbelievable? opposite David Instone-Brewer, who seemed bamboozled by the Bible Geek's vast and confident knowledge.

Some biblical scholars wear their knowledge like a crown, or at least like an expensive suit of clothes requiring careful laundering and only suitable for the poshest occasions. Bob Price wears his erudition like a pair of frayed and faded jeans. He appears to have an instantaneous random access memory of all things biblical, and will throw his nuggets out into the world with nary a care, and often a wry comment. He's not a believer, but maybe this gives his take on scripture an objectivity perhaps lacking in those who so desperately want scripture to be true.

Get your weekly dose of objective scripture here:
http://www.thehumanbible.net/

Subscribe with iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-human-bible/id506886767
...or with any podcatcher here:
http://thehumanbible.libsyn.com/rss

D. J. Grothe at TAM London 2010

JREF president D. J. Grothe's talk at TAM London 2010 was a bit like a State of the Union address, focussing on the moral imperatives of skepticism (briefly referencing Sam Harris's new book just published) and on how he sees the skeptical movement in general, both globally and locally. As for locally, he announced that the fund-raising of TAM London would be channelled to JREF projects in the UK, and mentioned the grass-roots, loosely affiliated Skeptics in the Pub gatherings that seem to be burgeoning nationwide. Some of these appear to be a direct result of unofficial arrangements made at TAM London itself.



I was looking forward to hearing the new JREF president, and DJ's rallying cry to "the troops" didn't disappoint.

Skeptical Activism panel at TAM London 2010

Before I get around to posting about the individual talks and events at February's QEDcon in Manchester, I should complete my posts about TAM London 2010. My previous post on this subject took us to the afternoon of the first day, and next up is the panel discussion on Skeptical Activism. This was chaired by Tracey Brown of Sense About Science; the other panelists were former Liberal Democrat MP Dr Evan Harris, legal blogger David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent) and science writer Simon Singh.

Each delivered a five-minute talk that couldn't be much more than an introduction, and then the panel discussion began, with Tracey Brown fielding questions from the floor. The emphasis of the discussion was that activism is all very well, but skeptical activism must be backed up by evidence. Blogs, for instance, are well suited to such an approach, with the ability to link directly to the evidence supporting what the the blogger is saying.



It was an interesting panel without much structure; Tracey Brown did a good job moderating, and the whole thing clearly gave attendees much to think on.

Sue Blackmore at TAM London 2010

It was entirely appropriate that the second Amaz!ng Meeting London should begin with Sue Blackmore's talk on her arduous path to skepticism*. Professor Susan Blackmore is well known on the skeptic/humanist/atheist circuit, and her appearance at TAM London 2010 was the third time I've heard her speak in person — the others being the Humanist Philosophers' one-day event "Evolution: Is This All There Is?" at Conway Hall on 31 October 2009, and a debate about intelligent design following a screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed at Imperial College on 27 February 2010, arranged through Premier Christian Radio.

Her talk at TAM London, however, was of a different and personal kind, being an illustrated account of her own search for actual paranormal phenomena. At college she personally had a paranormal experience — specifically an out-of-body experience, which convinced her that such things were real. She set out, therefore, to do the necessary rigorous research to prove, scientifically, the existence of the paranormal. She was disappointed, however, that her research didn't come up with the categorical proof she was hoping for. There were some positive results, but in terms of statistical significance they didn't count. Nevertheless the "paranormal" is a wide field, so she broadened her research to take in other aspects of paranormal manifestation. Time and again the results showed there was nothing there, and eventually, reluctantly, she had to concede that in fact the paranormal does not exist. No telepathy, no clairvoyance, no precognition, no ghosts. Nothing. It took twenty years.

Woo-merchants are often challenged to produce evidence backing up their claims. What they usually provide (if anything) is anecdotal — rarely is anything approaching scientific  proof forthcoming. Sue Blackmore's story shows why: when such claims are put to the test — rigorous, scientific, peer-reviewed test — they fail. Randi's Million Dollar Prize is safe.

(Sue Blackmore made a point of giving her talk in the same garb she wore at college — she showed photographs to prove it — in a fitting tribute to her former self.)

____________

*Sharp-eyed readers will note that I have succumbed, despite my initial declaration, to spelling skepticism with a 'k'. I've become used to reading it thus, and so thus shall I henceforth write it.

D. J. Grothe on The Pod Delusion

When I launched my occasional sceptical podcast Skepticule in September last year I lamented the apparent dearth of British sceptical podcasts. Little did I know that at the very same time a weekly UK-based sceptical podcast, The Pod Delusion, was also in the process of being launched. Though I had reservations about the variable audio quality of the first few episodes of The Pod Delusion, which perhaps is inevitable when a variety of independent contributors are involved, this now seems to have settled down.

Audio quality, though important, is secondary to content, and the latest edition of The Pod Delusion has scooped the global sceptical podcast community by releasing an interview by Jon Treadway with the new president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, D. J. Grothe. (And by the way, the audio quality is fine.)

D. J. comes to the JREF from the Center for Inquiry and the well-respected podcast Point of Inquiry. I've related elsewhere on this blog how I discovered sceptical podcasting — Skepticality was the first, but Point of Inquiry runs it a close second, and D. J. has some exciting revelations about the future of Point of Inquiry as well as sceptical podcasting from the JREF.

He also announced that there will be a second TAM London in 2010. This is great news. TAM London was a defining event for me last year and I'm delighted to hear that there will be another this year. I only hope the venue will be big enough, and that the registration will be less of a lottery.

The relevant Pod Delusion episode is available here:
http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2010/01/08/episode-16-8th-january-2010/

or you can subscribe in iTunes here:
http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=332231975

or with any podcatcher using this feed:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlog_rss.asp?phlogid=9216

You can listen to an extended version of the D. J. Grothe interview here:
http://www.ipadio.com/phlogs/PodDelusionExtra/2010/01/08/The-Pod-Delusion-DJ-Grothe-Interview

and this is also downloadable from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/333329812/PodDelusionExtra_DJGrothe_20100108.mp3

It seems that UK scepticism is at last taking off; we've already had the relaunch of the UK Skeptic magazine, and later this month I shall be pleased to attend the inaugural Winchester Skeptics in the Pub. Things are looking up.

Jon Ronson at TAM London

When the gnome-like figure of Jon Ronson* mounted the Mermaid stage I was pleasantly surprised to find that the impression of flabbergasted diffidence given by his media appearances seems to be his natural persona. My previous knowledge of him derives from two programmes: a BBC Radio 4 documentary about Robbie Williams attending a UFO convention to speak to alien abductees, and a Channel 4 film in the recent Revelations series, about the Alpha Course.

I'm currently reading his book, Them - Adventures with Extremists, and finding it compulsive. Ronson has a down-to-earth narrative style that's hard to put down.

He began his presentation with a trailer for the film The Men Who Stare at Goats, based on his book of the same name, though he said he had nothing to do with the making of the film. It's about the US military's psychic spying programme, which bizarrely included attempts to kill with the power of the mind. Hence the goats, which were used as target practice. Ronson showed a few other clips from the film as he outlined the absurdity of it all.

I vaguely remember a BBC Horizon programme from decades ago on this subject, and I remember my amazement watching it. Surely, I thought, the US military weren't really doing this? The TV programme itself seemed to remain neutral on the veracity of the claims, which included "remote viewing", but to me the whole thing appeared completely crackpot.

Ronson also showed a clip verifying his dubious distinction of having a weapon named after him. The "Ronsonator" is a fiendish device, as we saw during demonstrations of similar weapons, which could perhaps be described as the knuckle-dusters from Hell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSM-bhQUJ-8



During the Q & A Ronson answered questions about his film on the Alpha Course, updated us on the whereabouts of one of the subjects of Them, and declined to talk about his current project, which is about Scientology, other than to say that his relations with the Scientologists had so far been cordial. Fascinating stuff.
________
*Jon Ronson's website froze my browser (Firefox Mac) - you have been warned.

Brian Cox at TAM London

Last weekend I attended The Amaz!ng Meeting, London, put on by the James Randi Educational Foundation. This was the first TAM to be held beyond the shores of North America. It more than fulfilled my expectations and I had a great time. I'll post some of my impressions here, beginning with the first presentation.

It was a scheduling masterstroke to kick off TAM London with a lavishly illustrated presentation by Professor Brian Cox, who explained the purpose behind the Large Hadron Collider (and, incidentally, behind scientific research in general). He outlined the LHC's current state, and by way of a compressed but lucid lecture on cosmology and leading-edge particle physics he showed why this huge accelerator beneath the Swiss-French border is important. His elaboration of the problem that caused the LHC to be shut down shortly after it was commissioned was the clearest I've heard.

His main point was that while it's possible to theorise about scientific subjects, ultimately such theories have to be tested, and when it comes to particle physics, the only way of testing them is with something like the LHC. He also covered the media's misguided panic over the possibility of the LHC producing miniature black holes, listing some media quotes from a number of scientists - including himself: "Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat."

In Brian Cox we are fortunate to have someone who not only knows his subject inside out, but is also able to communicate abstruse ideas with clarity, wit and passion. (It's no surprise that one of his scientific heroes is Carl Sagan.)

JREF YouTube account suspended - why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Cn_gjevik



What's going on? This is madness.

The JREF YouTube channel is an invaluable resource, a growing repository of sanity in today's woo-woo-obsessed world. If - like me - you want it reinstated forthwith, let YouTube know. (Full instructions are in the video's description where it appears on YouTube.)

UPDATE 2009-04-03:

It's back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE

Let them down gently

James Randi's latest Swift commentary has this piece about Street Light Interference:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/060807.html#i1

It reminded me of something I read recently while browsing the JREF forums, concerning an applicant for the million dollar challenge:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50014

Marcus Tisdale, a 19-year-old student, applied for the challenge in January 2006, claiming that he could control street lights "by paranormal or otherwise unknown circumstances."

What struck me about the email exchange was not the claim itself, or the conviction of the applicant that he was able to do this thing, but the sensitivity with which Kramer dealt with the application: "Perhaps the answer you seek is simpler than the one you have imagined."

Occam's Razor, yet again.