Recent Comments

I think, these meetings are great! However, sometimes I wonder: If everything is "user-driven" - how do you make sure it is not always the "usual suspects" discussing things within their own circles? How do you integrate input from outside the community?

A multi-part questions:
Do either Reed or Bora feel that balancing gender and ethnicity at science- and skepticism-based conferences (speakers and/or attendees) is a serious issue today? What should be expected and is there a 'standard' that conferences aspire to that is not well known?
If effort to maintain balance is necessary, how can organizers avoid tokenism?

Ha its a very informative blog. In case of spinal problem treatment, chiropractic treatment is available at several spinal care centers in Vancouver. The back pain doctors offer diagnosis and treatment of back-related problems using chiropractic treatment. They also offer clinical therapies and treatments to keep spinal problems at bay.

Chris, I've tried to find out how the superstition originated (it probably came from the Ukraine), and I agree something like what you describe is a big possibility: practical considerations. Like "don't walk under a ladder" -- duh, it's dangerous!

Massage Toronto Acupunture: The circulation question is certainly one of the easiest targets for a skeptical massage therapist, because the evidence is so clearly underwhelming, and the comparison to exercise is inevitable for anyone who thinks about the question for more than five minutes. I believe that “increased circulation” is definitely a simplistic and exaggerated rationale for massaging.

Sure, there are a few modality-o-centric studies of massage, but it’s a real mish-mash of under-powered experiments, and it is routine for massage research to be super vague about exactly what kind of massage is being studied.

This article discusses some issues that plague massage research, see:

  http://SaveYourself.ca/51

Thanks, Laura. Smart people will always disagree with each other about some things, always respect each other for it, and always tolerate a wide range of "personality" in that discussion. ;-) In my opinion, the only “offensive” way to communicate about issues in health care would be things like foul language and personal insults — none of which I do!

Paul,

You stick to your path! It doesn't make any difference whether I agree with your opinions or not, I still say shame on anyone who tries to censor you! I am incredulous that anyone thinks they have the right to deny anyone else freedom of speech.

Laura Allen

Terrorism? Seriously? To believe so strongly in something you believe in and then act on it in a peaceful protest is by no means terrorism. Only to those who think that they may be wrong and you may be right, would be that fearful.

Hi Alex,

The link is above, in the first sentence of the show notes. Our notes are tricky, though; you have to click on each episode title to see the links and such from that show.

But here it is again, for your convenience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aohxyqKKHEo

Thanks for listening!

Loved the interview with Dr. Rachie, but wondered if you'd put up the link for the awful bigfoot video.

The most I have done is placed Offit's <i>Autism's False Prophets</i> and placed it over a former freelance travel writer's book on shelf above (<i>"Evidence" of Harm</i>, which really belongs in fiction not medical!). Oh, wait, I have covered one of the Hoagland (moon hoax guy) books on the new books table with a real book as I walked out of the store.

As far as putting keys on the table for bad luck; I would not say it will bring bad luck, but it is a bad habit (especially if you have small children in the house).

One time I was gardening when my newborn baby was sleeping, and my hubby came out of the back door to tell me he was going to go to the store for something. He closed and <b>locked</b> the door behind him. I broke into the house in a panic (the baby was still sleeping).

Then when that same child was a toddler twice I was in a panic because I could not find my keys. Both times I found them in the laundry. The toddler had found them on the table and dropped them down the laundry chute (yes, I found other things there too).

So I now have a habit of always carrying my keys with me, even in the house!

Okay, so now I'd like to take my own advice and discuss the actual topic.

I worked at a mega-chain bookstore as a salesperson and a manager for almost five years. Every night, we had to spend a certain amount of time after the store closed policing the shelves, making sure everything was put back in its proper place. It was a drag, but necessary if we ever hoped to find anything the next day.

Most of the items that are moved around a store like that are purely random. Folks pick something up, carry it around for awhile, read it or not, and put it down wherever they are when they decide not to buy it. Stuff wanders all over a store in that way.

Which is why particularly apt misshelves tended to stand out. When something from the New Age section got stuck in Fiction, it was always good for a chuckle, at least for me.

So the people who have to clean up after re-shelving are going to see it as a mixed bag. On the one hand, they might appreciate that the new shelve might be appropriate. On the other, they're obliged to move it back. Their sales depend on being able to find the books they have in stock, and that depends on being able to look the book up in an electronic inventory and then go to the shelf and grab it. If the book isn't where it's supposed to be, that's a probable missed sale, so most stores probably won't be inclined to leave the books in a section that's incorrect, at least as far as their corporate-imposed inventory categories are concerned.

As far as effectiveness, it's difficult to say. I don't have any idea what it's like to not already have a strong feeling about whether or not Intelligent Design is science. I suspect that seeing an ID book in the science section might lend it some legitimacy in the eyes of a person who doesn't know much about the issue, but it's only my suspicion.

In terms of our reputation, I think that's a big old "meh." The only people who are going to notice that the books have been moved are the bookstore employees, and people who know enough about ID to already have an opinion about which shelf it should be on. The pro-science folks will think it's great. The pro-ID folks will hate it and call it censorship.

Thing is, the pro-ID people don't like us anyway. And it's useless to try and act nice enough that they don't have an issue with us. So I think, on balance, that I'm in favor of guerrilla re-shelving. It might raise the awareness of a bookseller here and there. And it might make it a little harder for ID proponents to sell their books as science. It's relatively harmless, and the ID folks are going to hate us if we condone it or not.

I might answer differently if I was still wandering around a gigantic bookstore, re-shelving at 11:45 pm on a Saturday night. But I'm not, so I say keep it up.

Terrorism?
Give me a break.

We are talking a bout a group of idealogues who themselves do not play fair.
We as skeptics & science advocates are FAR to reticent to use tactics that seem the least 'un-fair'. So long as truth and logic prevail, we should not be so shy - it simply gives them an advantage they have not earned.

Reshelveing books... perhaps it's childish. But taking them out of the science section is nothing BUT honest. Terrorism? Not at all. Suppression of free-speech/free-thought? If we were burning the books I'd agree with you. I'd even happily bop anyone who did so in the nose. But simply reshelving them is no more than a petty tactic. If someone can live with themselves for doing so, that is their problem.
If I can think of an argument to allow me to live with myself for having done so, then I'll be heading over to Chapters right away.

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho
"I cannot say otherwise: reshelving of books is a terrorist action against freedom of thought."

I have two questions. How does moving a book from one shelf to another in a bookstore threaten anyone's freedom of thought? Nobody is being told what to believe. The book is still available for purchase. The customer can still read the cover in order to determine how the publisher describes the contents. The resource hasn't been removed or censored, merely moved to another part of the store.

Second, how can you seriously compare that to acts of deliberate violence that injure and kill thousands of innocent people every year? You don't agree with reshelving books, that's fine. But it in no way resembles terrorism. Your hyperbole is ridiculous, and substituting such rhetoric for any actual criticism (or even discussion) of the topic is worse than useless.

Terrorism? Please.

You're either a troll or you have some sort of persecution complex.

Your comment is as much terrorism as book re-shelving is.

The point of terrorism is to induce fear in people; it may be done for ideological reasons or for no reason at all, but the desired end result is to paralyze a group through fear.

If Cdesign Proponentsists are truly paralyzed by fear in finding their books shelved in the fiction section, then we need to ramp up this project, and we should have them all cowering in their 80s era bomb shelters by next weekend.

Moochie: Welcome! And thanks very much for the feedback. :)

Enezio: Well, that's fairly hyperbolic. Care to explain how you come to that position?

Hi,

Good podcast! I'm listening to it (not live) in Melbourne, Australia, where I live with my Edmonton-born partner and a lovely old tabby who has only a little black in his coat.

Many years ago I did have a black cat, a beautiful creature who crossed my path countless times. Although she brought me neither good nor bad luck, I felt lucky to have made her acquaintance.

Thanks for an enjoyable listen.

Cheers!

I cannot say otherwise: reshelving of books is a terrorist action against freedom of thought.

Thank you for bringing attention to my reshelving activities. I want to make sure your listeners know, however, that I do not go to bookstores specifically to reshelve books, as others might do. I am at the store for other reasons, and only then does reshelving become a part of my visit.

Won't be able to catch this one live... there's a big party going on here. (In Vancouver.)

Glad you liked it! But I see what you mean. I'll see if Mike can fix the sound and upload it again. In the meantime, I've posted the transcript in the "notes" section; just scroll down past the audio player.

Thanks!

d

That bit you added in to replace the Speaking Up interview was great. Any way we could get a transcript, though? There were big chunks where the music was too loud, and it walked all over the monologue. I'd like to get the full experience, if you know what I mean. Thanks!

Hi!

Dr Raichie, you are obviously very logical and process oriented. Others see things and understand things differently, obviously. My question therefore is:

"With regards to discussions you have with others who are religious, or pseudoscience believers, or others of similar bent, how do you find your terminology is understood, and what do you do to try and ensure they understand your perspectives?"

In my travels I've found most Australians to be educated to a much higher standard when it comes to the sciences (social and physical). Is this just a reflection on the countries I've visited or is there a lot of positive things to be said about Australian education?

Interesting question.

The physiological differences between how different races respond to medication, alcohol and such is squarely a practical, science-based question.

But the cultural issues around race are fascinating. We received a number of emails after the episode on gender, asking us to do a show on people of different ethnicities and skepticism. And as soon as we announced the race episode, I started receiving emails about how the queer community relates to skepticism. So expect some preoccupation with that a few months from now. :)

I just listened to the alcohol episode, and in it Desiree asks twice about race - now there is this episode. What is Skeptically Speaking's preoccupation with race?

I love Eugenie Scott! And no one can deny the coolness of the new Loxton Evolution book. :)

@Rob B

So-called scientists using the word "race" are perpetuating the myth that it exists. Why perpetuate a myth? Aren't scientists supposed to use the correct terminology to inform the public? In my view, if you want to get rid of racism, scientists (and indeed everyone) should stop using the word "race" and start using the correct term/s to inform the public instead of perpetuating an archaic concept that doesn't exist.

Yolande, is that a serious question? In order to talk about why something is nonsense, you have to be able to talk about the nonsense concept. So, in this case, the biological concept of "races" within the human species is bunk, so of course you have to use the word "race."

@Greg

Then why do you keep using the term "race"?