Two from Today: 1) Fostering with equality; 2) Paranormality

From the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme this morning come these two snippets. First is an interview with Eunice and Owen Johns who are no longer allowed to be foster parents because they are unable, due to their Christian faith, to (as far as I can gather) refrain from condemning homosexuality. Listening to this interview is frustrating because try as he might Justin Webb cannot get out of either of them what it is they've done, or are prepared to do, that has caused them to be barred from fostering.

Eunice claims that all they are asking for is "a level playing-field in society" — when what they clearly want is a field that slopes towards the condemnation of anything that is contrary to their faith. If they are providing a public service such as fostering, it is right that they should not be allowed to discriminate by condemning (presumably within earshot of their foster-children) certain sections of that public. (It's a bit of a weird case and I've not read a transcript of the judgement.)

From the Today website:

Eunice and Owen Johns have been foster parents and have provided a secure loving home to vulnerable children. But because they are Pentecostalists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, in a landmark ruling yesterday the High Court sided with the local authority view that these beliefs disqualify the Johns' from any future fostering.

The five-minute streaming audio is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9410000/9410365.stm

---

And just before the 9 am news we had Professor Richard Wiseman promoting his new book Paranormality. (I have a copy, and I can vouch for the fact that it does indeed contain Normal Paragraphs.)

From the Today website:

According to a new book by Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist from the University of Hertfordshire, the paranormal is a form of illusion. He examines the psychology of the paranormal and why people believe what they do. Robert McLuhan, author of Randi's Prize, disputes Professor Wiseman's claim and explains why.

The five-minute streaming audio is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9410000/9410492.stm

If Robert McLuhan thinks near-death experiences are "extraordinary" I hope he's got better evidence than Gary Habermas. This seems unlikely, however, judging by his response today at the Guardian Comment is Free website:

Response Precognitive dreaming should not be dismissed as coincidence | Comment is free | The Guardian

Robert McLuhan's "response" contains some choice nuggets:

Where dreams are reported that match future events on a number of specific details – as is often the case – statistical probability is not particularly useful.

Not particularly useful? I would have thought statistical probability was absolutely crucial in distinguishing actual phenomena from random noise. He goes on:

One such case, recorded in JW Dunne's 1930s bestseller An Experiment With Time, involves someone dreaming of meeting a woman wearing a striped blouse in a garden and suspecting her of being a German spy. Two days later the dreamer visits a country hotel where she is told of a woman staying there who other residents believe to be a spy. She later encounters the woman outside, and finds the garden and the pattern on the blouse exactly match her dream. Such reports – where the dream is recorded immediately afterwards and prior to the event it appears to foretell – cannot be dismissed as anecdotal.

Does Robert McLuhan know what anecdotal means? I read Dunne's book decades ago, and my recollection is that though it was fascinating, Dunne's experiment could hardly be described as rigorously scientific, relying as it did on a good deal of interpretation by the experimenter. McLuhan's example above is indeed, therefore, anecdotal.

Richard Wiseman's original article in the Guardian is here:
Can dreams predict the future? | Science | The Guardian

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.

Journey to the Other Side - Robbie Williams and Jon Ronson

In this BBC Radio 4 half-hour documentary, ex-Take That pop star Robbie Williams goes to a UFO conference in Nevada to talk to alien abductees.

RealPlayer stream available via 'listen again':*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/shows/rpms/radio4/robbiewilliams_jonronson.ram


Download RealPlayer here

From the BBC website:
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/robbieandjonjourney.shtml)

Robbie Williams is taking time out from being a pop star and wants to get out and have adventures in the world of the paranormal.

He has a genuine interest in UFOs and has been researching sightings, abductees and the possibility of extra terrestrial life.

During the course of the day, Robbie and Jon meet a doctor who claims to have 15 metallic objects which are not earthly, as well as a British woman, Ann Andrews, who believes that her youngest son Jason is an 'indigo child' - a child abducted by extra terrestrials while in the womb and sent back to Earth to save the planet.

The documentary was recorded on location over 3 days in LA and Nevada. The programme is a radical departure from the usual pop star interview and Jon Ronson brings his own incisive take on proceedings with Robbie at the UFO conference.

I can't decide whether this is a send-up or intended to be taken seriously. But the tenor of the show was effectively summed up early on, when Robbie Williams says, "Don't show me any debunking stuff, you know, because I want to believe."

*UPDATE:

The 'listen again' link above has expired. Get the mp3 from RapidShare here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/226461720/Journey_to_the_Other_Side.mp3

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.