Monday, December 21, 2009

Christmas Fact and Fiction

This is a season inspired by myth, but not just that of Santa Claus.
Here are some interesting pages on the truth behind Christmas. There is everything from the history of Christmas to if Poinsettias are poison, to if suicide rates really go up in the days before Christmas.

The Urban Legends page about Christmas

Religious Tolerance's page about Christmas and Jesus's birth

The History Channel's page on Christmas History

Winter Myths Debunked

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Critical Thinking 101: A Mini Guide

I think learning the basics of critical thinking is important. This mini guide is for people who don't have a lot of time to go through the main Critical Thinking 101 post. This list should give anyone a solid foundation for critical thinking skills.


*An Introduction to Skeptical Activism by Dr. Steve Novella
This is a great lecture by Dr. Steven Novella. Dr. Novella, from the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast and president of the New England Skeptical Society, gives a lot of insight into skeptical activism and the basic things that every active skeptic should know. This lecture was hosted by the New York City Skeptics.


*Scientific Skepticism
This excellent wikipedia article lays out the basic characteristics of scientific skepticism and skepticism in general.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Investigating the Investigators Part I

Last Saturday two members of The Cleveland Skeptics decided to go to a 4 hour seminar hosted by the Paranormal Researchers of Ohio. From their website:

We are a Christian-based organization, located in Northeast Ohio, dedicated to the research and investigation of paranormal activities, and educating the public about ghosts and the field of the paranormal. We research claims of hauntings, ghost sightings, and other purportedly paranormal activities. In addition, we assist other paranormal agencies with their investigations and research.

It was $20 per person.

There was a lively discussion on the mailing list about whether or not anyone should pay for, and thus support, the spread of dubious claims and ideas. Some felt that all the information one needs to know about ghost researchers is already on the web, especially at skeptic-based websites, and one person even went so far as to comment, "a fool and his money are soon parted."

Why did we go? Here are our answers:

I decided to go to the local ghost hunter group's seminar because I wanted to learn a few things. I wanted to learn exactly what a ghost is and what a spirit is. I wanted to see what their best evidence was that proved, like the title of their seminar, ghosts are real. Lastly I wanted to learn how to investigate a supposed "haunted" house. I wanted to submerge myself in the beliefs of proponents of the paranormal. I was expecting to hear all kinds of misconceptions about skeptics and science. I was expecting to hear more ghost stories than any hard evidence. Just the usual stuff that one would expect at a seminar like this. I also wanted to go to this seminar to investigate the ghost investigators, because I'm always looking for an opportunity to learn what the believers believe and why they believe it. I think it adds credibility to what we skeptics say and do. Believers and the public at large will take us seriously and not be so quick to cast us off as "closed-minded-know-it-all skeptics". We will not gain any insights into the mind or psyche of the believer if we continually just dismiss them and their claims out-of-hand. Especially if we just explain away everything paranormal with "oh, they were drunk, high, etc." That doesn't help our cause or help us learn anything. I went to this seminar because I wanted to learn, get field experience, and gain credibility. I'm happy to say that I acheived all three.

I feel that as part of being a skeptic, I ideally must find out as much information about a topic, and from multiple sources in order to understand and make a judgment about it. In the case of ghosts, I felt that I had not come across adequate evidence yet to make me believe. In fact, I had not even heard a really good definition or explanation of why they exist. However, I had never really sought out much information, either. Although skeptical sources thoroughly argue against much of the "evidence" for ghosts out there, if I were not to go to pro-ghost sources, I would be limiting the scope of information I took in. I may not be 100% comfortable with it, but I feel there are times when there are excellent opportunities to in person learn from and interact with true believers is to pay. I felt this was one of those situations. It was 4 hours of lots of information, q&a, photos and demonstrations. I expected this seminar to come across as silly and for my eyes to roll right out of my head. But surprisingly overall, it was a lot different and a lot more enlightening than I expected.

What do you think?

Next: Areas of disagreement between the Skeptics and the Paranormal Researchers

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Michael Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit

With a sea of information coming at us from all directions, how do we sift out the misinformation and bogus claims, and get to the truth? Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine lays out a "Baloney Detection Kit," ten questions we should ask when encountering a claim.

Notable Link:
The Baloney Detection Kit

Sunday, April 26, 2009

A Scam Artist Gets Busted

This video shows a woman pushing a bra that she claims "massages the toxins out of a woman's breasts and helps prevent breast cancer". Not a shred of evidence to prove it, she gets grilled and busted by this reporter. There are scam artists like this one all over the world, who prey on people's fears, desperation, and credulity. It's scam artists like this that should make us skeptics proud of what we're doing.

Enjoy this video, because this rarely happens on the news. You rarely see the news being skeptical.

Important Links:
Buyer Beware the Brassage? ABC News Report

Tuesday, April 21, 2009


I would like to take this opportunity to briefly discuss open-mindedness and what it means. I say briefly because I recently stumbled onto a video that explained it more brilliantly than I ever could.

When someone who is promoting a paranormal idea, tells you you're closed-minded, politely inform them that this is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. They are attacking you, the arguer, instead of your argument.

Don't fall into the same trap, as the skeptic, by dismissing these paranormal ideas out-of-hand by stating, "well, of course that person is wrong...they're stupid/crazy". You would just have committed the same logical fallacy the believer had committed.

Lets remember to keep an open mind about things of the paranormal, but not so open that our brain falls out. Be open, but be skeptical. I would say,
"I'm open-minded, but I need evidence, reason, and argument to be convinced that (paranormal claim) is true."

The following video makes this point beautifully. Watch, enjoy, and share with your friends.

Important Links:
*The Author, of this video's, YouTube Account (excellent videos on critical thinking)

*Who Is Closed Minded, the Skeptic or the Believer? by Brian Dunning

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Date with Darwin

Last Saturday for Valentine's Day, the Cleveland Skeptics and the Cleveland Freethinkers commemorated Darwin Day (February 12) with a trip to the Cleveland Museum of Natural History and to see a one-man play by Professor Floyd Sandford reviewing the life of Charles Darwin.

We loved the museum so much they had to flip the lights and then ask us to leave so they could lock the doors. Onward from there, many of us went to Mi Pueblo on Euclid Ave. near E. 117th where the Mexican food was not your typical American-Mexican.

Thanks so much to everyone who came and made this a fantastic event with the largest turn-out ever!

Floyd Sandford as Charles Darwin in "Darwin Remembers".

A representation of the great flood?

Replica of Lucy.

Mark portrays the angry Young Earth Creationist.

Ginger excited to finally be able to
do some birding while at the museum.

There are many more pictures at the Cleveland Skeptic's photo album and the Cleveland Freethinker's photo album. To RSVP for a Cleveland Skeptics event go to our page, or likewise, to RSVP for a Cleveland Freethinkers event go here.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Can you buy stock in psychics?

Found the following story through the Atheist Experience Blog:

The housing crisis will deepen, the country could fall into a depression and laid-off workers may need to start their own business.

If this sounds like the advice of a financial planner or an economist, think again. It's a reading from psychic medium Roxanne Usleman.

As the economy tanks, Usleman's business is booming...

"The biggest reason people are going to see psychics is probably that they want to feel in control," says Johar, who studies consumer behavior.
And just when you thought you couldn't get sicker, they refer to a website, now bustling with traffic, which connects users with live online psychics:

Sunday, February 1, 2009

January Drinking Skeptically

January's Drinking Skeptically was beyond a success! 23 skeptics joined together at the Willoughby Brewing Company for good food, great beer, and wonderful company and conversation! After dinner was over, the truly dedicated headed off through the cold streets of downtown Willoughby to a warm Arabica's for a little post drinking coffee and snacks. When the Arabica's closed, the die-hard skeptics headed off to another pub, 1899, where we found a cozy little corner upstairs with some big comfy couches and of course, more drinks.

23 skeptics at our third Drinking Skeptically!

At 1899, Randy and Karen debate the virtues of
draft microbrews vs. American staple Miller Lite.

The new rap sensation - "GiGi and Scottero" perform The Bible Thump!!!!

Beyond a doubt, Josh is the happiest skeptic we know!

Marni, Ginger and Scott pondering a passage from Deuteronomy.
Here are the rest of the photos.

The Cleveland Skeptics are a part of the national Drinking Skeptically network. Drinking Skeptically is, "an informal social event designed to promote fellowship and networking among skeptics, critical-thinkers, and like-minded individuals."

Drinking Skeptically is a casual monthly get together where drinkers and non-drinkers alike can kick back at the bar and feel free to have a drink or two.

If you would like to attend a Cleveland Drinking Skeptically or any Cleveland Skeptics event, please go to our page.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Car 54 Where Are Ewe?

OK, a ewe is a sheep and not a goat, but I couldn't resist.

Nigerian police recently arrested a goat in an armed robbery. A vigilante group was unable to find the alleged armed robber but they did see a goat. As anyone would, they assumed it was the criminal who had transformed himself into an animal using witchcraft.

Upon questioning the goat had no comment.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Keeping Abreast of Pseudoscience Part II

As I promised in the previous one, here is the second of a perfect pair of beautiful, shapely blog posts. Earlier I commented on the red flags of pseudoscience waving in the ad for Easy Curves breast enhancing exercise equipment, but mentioned that research methods of the supposed study or studies presented in the commercial could make up it's own post.

Let's assume that Easy Curves arrived at their "facts and figures" that in just 5 minutes a day increased the average bust line from 36.4 inches to 37.2 inches as well as increased firmness by 30% in 30 days," through a formal study. What are some points to consider in assessing the validity of the study?

Number of Subjects
What was the sample size in the study? The the larger the number of subjects (N), the greater the chance that a difference that is found is meaningful. N also influences whether a result is statistically significant, something else we don't know about the study.

Study design
A repeated measures design looks at the same subjects before and after the intervention (in this case use of Easy Curves for 30 days). It may or may not have a control group who is also tested before and after the intervention. Compared to a cross-sectional design, that is, finding a group of people who have used Easy Curves for 30 days vs. a group of people who have not and then comparing them, a repeated measures design helps to reduce the extra variance that occurs when comparing two groups made from two different sets of people.

The commercial did not mention any comparison groups. The study may have done a repeated measures design with only one group but an even stronger design would have also used a control group. This is because there are possible reasons firmness or breast size may have increased over time other than use of the Easy Curves. For example, the tendency of all Americans to gain weight over time might have been the reason for increased size. Perhaps people more likely to do exercises to increase their chest muscles would be more likely to volunteer for a study advertised as looking at methods to increase breast size and firmness. In that case, the additional exercises these people did may have been the cause and not the Easy Curves.

If two groups were compared, one of people told to use Easy Curves and the other told not to, were they assigned to these two groups randomly? Although unlikely, if people were not randomized, the more athletic, healthy people who eat well may choose to be in the Easy Curves group while the people who don't like to exercise may choose be in the control group.

Who measured the firmness and size? If it was the same person for all participants and both before and after, did their measuring techniques have test-restst reliability? I.e, can the testing method reliably produce the same result multiple times if used by the same person? (Um, who gets to rate the firmness?!)

If multiple testers were used to measure firmness and size, was there inter-rater reliability? That is the ability of a test to be used by different people and produce the same result. This can of course be influenced by how well trained the raters are, but some tests will inherently have greater inter-rater reliability than others.


Was the person who did the measurements of firmness and size blinded? If the rater is blinded, he or she does not know if the person they are measuring is receiving the intervention or not. Sometimes knowing what group the subject is in can influence the rater.

These are some basic points to consider when confronted with the results of a scientific study; by no means is "the study shows" or "statistical significance" the end of the story. In the case of Easy Curves we just don't have enough information to judge the validity the studies that may lend support for Easy Curves. If only the information we were given were a little more "filled out."

Please comment with any corrections or additions to this post. This is solely based from my college applied stats courses I took over 10 years ago. :)

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Keeping Abreast of Pseudoscience Part I

At the New Year's Eve party I attended, we saw an eye catching commercial on the Sci-Fi Channel. Women's breasts expanding and pulsating kept appearing on the screen. In just minutes a day, they claimed, all women could have a more heaving bosom by heaving away with their new exercise equipment, Easy Curves.

This commercial presents, "facts and figures" supporting the effectiveness of their product, yet if one pays attention to it, it has several hallmarks of possible pseudoscience. Pseudoscience was perhaps best described by Richard Feynman as "cargo cult science." That is to say, it imitates science without really getting at the heart of what really makes science science. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid has made a great list of red flags of pseudoscience.

What are some of the red flags of the Easy Curves commercial?

A woman in a white lab coat appears while the voice over describes their scientific study. Purveyors of pseudoscience often use the image of authority to support the legitimacy of their claims and give a scientific like appearance.

Mention of a study done by a University. Again, another use of authority to give an appearance of legitimate science but pay attention. They only say that the university study found, "You can change the shape and size of your breasts through working the underlying muscles." They then go on to say that, "using Easy Curves just 5 minutes a day increased the average bust line from 36.4 inches to 37.2 inches in 30 days." as well as increased firmness by 30%. If one is not careful, one will assume the university study is the same one showing results specific to Easy Curves. It may or may not be, they do not say.

The source of the information is selling the product. When the source of the information has a financial interest in promoting the product, therefore one must look at the claim with added skepticism.

What kind of methodology did they use in measuring visible lifting of the breasts and, "Increased firmness by 30% ?" There are so many potential problems with this I could write an entire post on it itself. Which gives me an idea...

Stay tuned for part two to complete the pair.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Predictions for 2009: Sylvia Browne Can't Lose

Hold me, I spent hours today listening to Sylvia Browne's webcast of her 2009 psychic predictions followed by her answers to dozens of videos and letter from her duped followers. And I took notes. I won't link to the video but you can find it if you want to hear the entire thing.

Sylvia Browne is a famous television psychic who has appeared frequently on Montel Williams and Larry King. In addition to answering many people's questions about their love lives, missing children or what career path they should choose, Sylvia also delves into supernatural questions. For example, she frequently answers queries about if a dead relative has passed to the other side, details about their spirit guides, and other unverifiable information about angels, heaven and the spiritual realm.

In the skeptic world, Sylvia Browne is well known for having stood up James Randi after promising to allow him to test her abilities. It's been over 5 years and Randi is still waiting.

I predict her predictions can only help her business. Not only are there lots of them, increasing the odds that at least some of them are correct, what are the chances that on December 31, 2009 she will review both her accurate and inaccurate predictions with her fans? How many of her fans will really remember any of the misses along with the hits if she does not? She only needs a few hits to appear convincing. Upon reviewing my long list of notes, I noticed that her predictions fell into several different categories:

Wishful thinking, or predictions that are crowd pleasers: The economy will improve, we will not be taken in by bad loans as much and more ma and pa businesses will sprout up. Majority of banks are safe.

The fairly obvious: Lots of brown outs and black outs in the midwest after January (this could easily be caused by ice storms and if it is a hot summer of course there will be brown outs at the very least.) Multiple small earthquakes in the coastal region of California, and the coastal regions will be hit by multiple hurricanes. Earthquakes in the far East.

The likely: Obama will start bringing troops home. Now she does mention December of 2009, the following Spring and then the following Fall specifically, but if it is a continuous withdraw then it's still a hit. Terrible weather all over the Midwest. More regulations on Wall Street and the loan industry.

So vague you can't lose: Lots of train accidents. She says the last time she made this prediction there were over 200. How many are there normally? Is this counting every person car or other local mishap that happened? There will be two plane crashes on the East Coast. Well it could be any kind of plane, couldn't it? And the East Coast is huge.

Specific but likely to be forgotten about by 2010: Bank robbers will get away with a large robbery in Las Vegas involving a Brinks truck. There will be a terrorist attack near Paris in late January.

The just plain weird: A large ocean liner will go aground sending many people into the water, but it won't be one she is on because she wouldn't get on to one of the ones that will go aground. Well if she knows which one, then why not tell us which it is? Winter will be mild in most of the East except for Boston and Philadelphia due to "polar tilt." New loan companies will spring up that are government regulated. Aren't they already?

As you can see, just from the obvious and likely categories, Sylvia is bound to generate several hits that will be remembered by her fans. And does she have fans. After listening to the predictions, I willed myself to listen to the many desperate women looking for a man and lonely people asking for the names of their spirit guides. People also asked if they should go into specific careers, what happened to the spirit of their deceased loved ones, why their leg was so swollen, and one sad woman asked for help with a severe case of agoraphobia and panic attacks. Despite all these different questions, the one I would have really have liked to see is, "Why am I asking you?"

For more information on Sylvia Browne, I recommend the site (This site used to go by another name, but while the author was in the hospital, the domain expired, bought by someone else, and due to issues with Google rankings, I will not repeat the old name here.) This site offers recaps of the accuracy of many of Browne's predictions, questionable advice and readings that are just plain cruel. Of particular note are videos of some disturbing readings she gave to desperate families of missing persons. (In researching "polar tilt" (??!!) I found another nice critique of Browne here.)