Satanic wind turbines

When the spires of churches, abbeys and cathedrals rose against the backdrop of the pristine rural landscape of medieval Britain, no one complained about how the tall monuments to the Christian god polluted the hills and the valleys.  Nobody said in desperate anguish,

“Is now not the time to say “enough” to any further blots on our landscape?”

Well, probably not, as any medieval church nimby who dared to complain would likely be on the receiving end of medieval Christian love: your property confiscated by the church and a burning at the stake.  Fortunately, these days such complainants wouldn’t be at the vicious mercy of lords and clerics.  At worst they get ridicule.

So step up Rt Revd Martin Wharton, the Bishop of Newcastle.

In a sermon against wind farms he somehow managed to imply that wind turbines are un-Christian, claiming the demonic wind turbines are turning the North East countryside into a “disfigured industrial landscape”:

“It is a basic Christian truth that we all have a duty and a responsibility to care for and exercise wise stewardship over God’s creation, which has been entrusted to us.”

The ‘basic truth’ is that our modern society needs energy.  Lots of it.  We also need to produce energy whilst at the same time reducing our carbon emissions to try and minimise the inevitable effects of climate change.  Wind, along with solar energy, ground source heat and other renewable and low carbon energy sources each need to form part of mixed energy solution.

Wharton, along with many wind turbine objectors, seem to hold a vague romantic view of the rural landscape, putting it on a mythic pastoral pedestal.  The reality is different; our rural landscape is home to the industry of providing food, a landscape designed, shaped and developed over a thousand years to feed people and maximise profits for landowners.  Enjoying the benefits of the latest in agricultural technology: materials, machinery and an arsenal of chemicals to squeeze out every ounce of productivity, a environment equally moulded by technology as it is by social change.  Underground, the mines of the North East provided the lead, iron and coal to fuel the industrial revolution.  Electricity pylons and telephone lines carry electricity and words, roads and railways carrying people, all have had a criss-crossing visual impact on the countryside.  It’s a landscape which has been evolving for thousands of years, and we’ve become so accustomed to many of these “blots on our landscape” that they have become part of it.  It’s a delicious irony that many of those who object to wind farms in Northumberland also want to see the very same countryside slashed with a dual carriageway all the way through the county.

Much of the wealth of the Church of England has been from it’s massive property holdings, so the church holds some responsibility for the current appearance of much of Britain’s landscape.  Hypocrisy?  You betcha.  Inclosure acts took land from communities and handed it over to landowners, changing rural society forever, with open land sliced away in a thousand pen strokes, the church often profiting from such acts.  Here in South Tyneside, the Church Commissioners’ vision of a “wise stewardship over God’s creation” included a plan to build a ‘business park’ and housing over the green belt at Fellgate in Jarrow.  In Gateshead the “wise stewardship” gave us the Metrocentre, ushering in out of town shopping, increased car use and the near death of many town centres.  Even now it looks like the Church Commissioners are seeking to claim mineral rights using ancient laws, looking forward to mammonic feast at the fracking trough.

The church cannot pretend to be protectors of our landscape or our environment.

Now, with wind farms, we are seeing the next step in the evolution of our northern landscapes (and seascapes), producing energy for an ever power hungry nation.  As an industrial scale technology, the second wind energy revolution is still in it’s infancy, and many detractors like Wharton use this to imply that the technology is unproven or unable to provide energy adequately:

“There is no evidence that I have seen that suggests that wind farms will ever provide the reliable, controllable energy that is required by our society, however many there might be.

“Furthermore some studies have even suggested that far from reducing CO2 emissions, wind farms actually increase them.”

Go back a mere hundred and twenty years, and many people with a similarly Luddite bent would be saying something eerily similar about electricity.

It shouldn’t really be surprising that a cleric would try to justify his opinion using an ancient holy book – the same holy book which also gives valuable nuggets of advice about how you should beat your wife and slave, and stone children for giving you lip.  However, when claiming a lack of evidence for an emerging technology, Wharton should realise that his glass house of god doesn’t stand up to the rocks of evidence at all.

Aphids for Jesus

Tree Has Patrons Crying For Joy – Philadelphia News, Weather and Sports from WTXF FOX 29.

Christians in the USA declare aphid excretions as miraculous.  WTXF – What The Xtian Fuck?

Where is everybody?

Not on Fermi ground…

Just over two years ago Mike Hallowell vomited a confused mess of an article over a page in the Shields Gazette, generally having a go at an imagined army of ‘rabid’ sceptics who dared to cast doubt on the belief that extra-terrestrials are visiting our planet in UFOs.  I found nothing convincing in his argument, nor in his lengthy responses to my blog post dissecting his nonsense.

Tonight he’s tilting at sceptics again, regurgitating the same arguments, albeit with a twist at the end where he offers a different opinion on the source of UFOs.  I could offer a similar robust critique to tonight’s article, but my original response pretty much stands up to the same teetering Jenga tower of logical fallacies.  Essentially he’s trying a play on the Fermi paradox but without any serious analysis of elephant in the room: where is the convincing incontrovertible evidence?  As Fermi said “Where is everybody?”  All of the ‘sceptics’ I know agree that there is a good probability that there is life elsewhere in our galaxy of 300 billion stars, and further into the universe.  Indeed, the ‘irrational’ Carl Sagan was hugely optimistic that life was out there.  It would be sad if there wasn’t.

But that doesn’t mean ETs have been here (yet at least), and there’s nothing that definitively proves that they have.  The best challenge Hallowell could muster for the lack of evidence was this painfully desperate gambit

One sceptic argued with me that “not a single piece of evidence exists that UFOS ever visited 
earth” .

This is a staggering claim, and one which could only be verified by searching every square inch of our planet – overground, underground, land-based and oceanic.

That’s right.  His argument is ‘you can’t say there’s no evidence if you haven’t found that there’s no evidence’.  Not a single piece of evidence has been found that flying horses exist or have existed either, but there are many people who suffer the delusion that flying horses existed.  Perhaps evidence for them is underground or underwater somewhere.

The headline to the article was “UFO sceptics’ claims are wearing thin”, but the burden of proof doesn’t lie at the feet of sceptics, it’s with those who are making claims of visitations by ETs.  Perhaps we will be visited one day, or perhaps it will be us who visit life on other worlds.

Amusingly, Hallowell spent nearly the whole article telling us how sceptics are wrong to doubt that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth, but then finishes with an astonishing

Do UFOs hail from other planets, and are their occupants truly extraterrestrial? Or, could they instead be interdimensional and hail from an alternate dimension or parallel world?

Personally I plump for the latter idea…

That’s right, he lambasts sceptics for not believing in something he doesn’t believe in.

Equal love, equal marriage, equal rights

This Thursday sees the end of the Government’s consultation on equal civil marriage.  It seems bizarre that in the 21st Century UK we still have a marriage system where a part of society is banned from getting married.  Just by nature of sexual orientation, LGBT couples are unable to enjoy the same ceremony as heterosexual couples.  On the other hand, heterosexual couples are not permitted to have a civil partnership.

It’s ridiculous.

The proposals in the government’s consultation are a good step forward, but don’t go far enough.  The proposals specifically include an opt-out for religious bodies.  I’m not religious, but I can see that there will be some same-sex couples belonging to a religion who would like to hold their wedding in a place of worship, blessed and officiated by a member of the clergy, joined by all their friends.  As religious bodies carry out marriages on behalf of the state, essentially a secular function, they should also be expected to carry out marriages of same-sex couples.

Religious bodies like the Church of England have gone into overdrive, even going so far as to claim that gay couples getting married would somehow undermine marriage.  Such a position, defending the current marriage apartheid, comes from hate and bigotry, and should be resisted.

However, the Government’s consultation questionnaire is pretty good, and does include questions covering all aspects of the equal marriage debate, and also allows you to make a submission of up to about 200 words in support of your response. 

You can submit your response to the consultation online at the Home Office’s equal civil marriage consultation page.

For more information, you can go to Peter Tatchell’s Equal Love page.

 

Here’s a copy of my submission’s supporting comment:

As a supporter of equal rights for everyone, I believe that it is only fair and reasonable for all people, irrespective of gender, should expect and enjoy the same rights to:

– civil marriage (for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships);
– civil partnership (for both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships);
– religious same-sex marriage, carried out in a place of worship.

Civil and religious marriages, and civil partnerships, should be open and available to all couples, through a law that is blind to the sexual orientation of couples, whilst respecting them at the same time.

As marriage is a state secular mechanism, it should also be established that any organisation carrying out marriages on behalf of the state, including religious ones,  should carry out same-sex marriages.  Whilst I understand that this may be problematic in terms of the belief systems of some religions, religious organisations should be made to allow those of their clergy who want to perform same-sex marriages to do so, and on their premises or place of worship.

There is no rational or just argument against establishing a modern system of marriage which reflects society and treats every citizen fairly.

Alpha – the new missionary position

If you’ve travelled by bus or Metro on Tyneside you can’t miss the posters advertising the Alpha Course, normally posing generic questions like ‘Is there more to life than this?’, or delivering bland feel-good phrases like ‘Life is worth exploring’.  In the run up to Christmas, they’ll be everywhere.  Despite the Alpha Course being a Christian missionary project, their posters rarely mention God, Christianity or Jesus.  I’ve always wondered by their advertising was so coy.

Over at the Atheism UK website, correspondent John Hunt has produced an excellent concise review of the current state of knowledge about the New Testament and the Jesus stories, and suggests that Alpha’s reluctance to mention the bible is down to the fact that the New Testament doesn’t really stand up to serious scrutiny.

Christian apologists debating the basis of their religion often point to the ‘historicity’ of Jesus and the brutality-lite New Testament account of his life.  But outside the scriptual accounts, it’s likely that Jesus is at most a construct of bolted together pre-existing myths, possible real or exaggerated accounts and even bare faced made up stories to fit in with – and expand – the legend of Jesus.

From the tales of King Arthur to Robin Hood, myth has played an important part in building cultural identity, but is ultimately an unreliable foundation for an evolving ethical framework.  As myths are retold it’s through the bias of the story teller, the perception filter of the listener and reflected in the mirror of zeitgeist.  They are also refined to either meet the tastes of a contemporary audience, or to provide a better story.  Sometimes, myths are remoulded to satisfy the demands of propaganda for political ends.

If the foundations of a belief structure are so shaky, how can anyone build an effective ethical ideology based upon a myth?

Start making sense

Skepticism as a method (that is, with a ‘k’ as opposed to a ‘c’) is not just a toolkit to assess and challenge unproven supernatural or paranormal propositions.  Every day we’re inundated with claims from manufacturers and retailers for products and services they say will make our lives better.  It’s not just the quack claims that we first think about, like homeopathy or crystal healing.  It’s things like training shoes specially designed to tone your calves, vibrating machines to strengthen your bones or wristbands to give you more energy.  It goes further.  What about that new policy your council has proposed, the voting pattern of your MP or your child’s school’s plans to change opening hours?

Being informed is not just the preserve of the skeptic, but the responsibility of every citizen, not just for our own benefit but for our friends, family and those vulnerable to the less scrupulous after the next quick buck.  If as citizens we aren’t informed, we’re not just risking being consumer victims to the unscrupulous claims of outrageous PR, but risking our democracy and our liberty.

One of the first questions to ask is devastatingly simple: Where’s the evidence?

You don’t need to be an expert.  Sense About Science has launched a useful guidance resource today to arm people with the necessary tools and advice to try and make sense of claims that seem to good to be true.

Start making sense here, now.

On the origin of specious arguments

Tonight’s Shields Gazette Wraithscape column about cryptids (anomalous or mythical animals) was an interesting overview of the various mythical humanoid cryptids like the Yeti or Bigfoot.  I’m sceptical of the existence of such creatures given the lack of real evidence, but I’m open to the possibility they may exist, especially as new species are discovered regularly, particularly in some of the more remote parts of our planet; the ancient rainforests, the deep ocean floors and the fringes of frozen wastes.  Such is the extraordinary diversity of life that evolution has bestowed upon our little blue and green spaceship.

However, Wraithscape author Mike Hallowell speculates that a supernatural force had a hand in it all.  He guesses that:

“despite their more human-like appearance, they’re probably apes of some kind and, yes, I tend to agree with the creationists that, rather support the theory of Darwinian evolution, their existence would tend to mitigate against it.”

That’s quite a proposition, especially without any explanation of why he thinks the (possible) existence of legendary cryptids is evidence against evolution, instead of say intervention by planet seeding extra-terrestrials in the manner of Mission to Mars.  I know the limitations of a newspaper column doesn’t allow much space for the development of a detailed argument, but as it stands, it seems like little more than the ill-informed idle speculation of someone who takes iron age religious texts over cold hard science.

In the face of the mountains of scientific evidence supporting the evolutionary model, a claim that a deity created creatures that haven’t even been proven to exist is preposterous.

If such mythical cryptids are found to exist, or have existed, science will tell us more about them and how they fit into our evolutionary development than a meandering religious fanstasy story.

The wrong trousers

It seems like there are plenty of people who believe that their special interest should be respected as if it was a special need.  Take midwife Hannah Adewole, who thinks that she should be excused the rules other medical staff have to follow because she’s a Christian.

Adewole thinks it’s disrespectful to expect her to wear scrub trousers because apparently, god told her so.  Deuteronomy 22:5 says:

“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”

Deuteronomy is a lot of fun.  As well as a gender dress code, the fashion advice extends to forcing you have tassels on your cloak and a ban on mixing wool with linen.  What a style faux-pas.  Add to that the Leviticus bans on piercing and tattoos, and looking fabulous whilst keeping the bible fashion police happy in iron-age Israel must have been a minefield of stonings.

The punishments in Deuteronomy are tough.  There’s loads of purging of evil and stoning, but on the plus side, lots of helpful guidance on how to treat your slaves.  However, women had to know their place.  If a woman grabbed a man’s wedding tackle in a fight, her hand had to be chopped off.  Less eye for an eye, more chop-off for a chopper.

Adewole is no lilly-livered liberal Christian.  She is full on hardcore:

“I believe that the Bible is truth and that its words should be followed wholeheartedly.”

You’ve got to admire her dedication.  But if I was her employer, I would be concerned about her wholehearted support for stoning and cutting limbs off.  Even more worrying for a midwife is someone who believes in the truth of a book which contains a psalm praising the bashing-in of babies’ heads.  Actually, there’s a bit of child murder and enslavement going on in that book.

But all of this theological nonsense isn’t what really matters.  Most of the time when religion keeps to itself it’s harmless and doesn’t matter much to those who don’t believe.  However, sometimes it overlaps into real life and we see the ‘respect’ vs reality battle end up being fought out in the courts.  I consider the respect narrative used by some Christians to be phoney, especially when they use the worn out ‘you wouldn’t do that to Muslims’ argument.  Using the courts to try and lever religion into areas it doesn’t belong whilst playing on a false sense of persecution seems to me incredibly dishonest.  It’s almost as if some Christians want to be persecuted, whether it’s over their choice of dress or jewellery, or the services that they are expected to provide to others.  The bottom line to me is that your religion is fine, as long as you keep it personal, and not try to force it on others, and in this case, through illiberal legal gambits.

What is worrying in this case is that someone in the medical profession thinks that their personal ideology based on ancient mythos trumps hygiene and safety rules; rules introduced to protect patients from infection.  Should such a person be working in a hospital?

Uninformed Flying Off the handle

Last night’s Wraithscape column in the Shields Gazette was a classic.  I enjoyed it immensely, but probably for the wrong reasons.  A yawning checklist of logical fallacies and flawed reasoning, all in reply to one disgruntled reader but taking the opportunity to try and have a go at sceptics who dare to challenge the preconceptions and biases of the X Files crowd. It’s laughable and a great example of how not to air your anxieties in public.  So much so that I’ve had to rewrite this to remove my instinctual response to pour on buckets of scorn.

Normally if I see something in the Gazette I disagree with, I’ll write a letter, but once I started shaking the tree of this article I realised that there was no way that I could answer Mike Hallowell’s  extra terrestrial apologetics in the 250 word limit of the Have Your Say page.

Here’s a ‘brief’ dissection of the word spew that formed the article in last night’s Shields Gazette, broken down into the paragraphs, with my response following.  But before you read on, please read the original first for context, just to make sure I’m not cherry-picking.

After telling his readers he was contacted by one angry individual:

“In an extremely aggressive manner, they suggested that anyone who was broad-minded enough to believe in the existence of UFOs was a crank.”

The reader’s reply does sound a bit nasty, but I call shenanigans on this straight away. I don’t think there’s  anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the existence of unidentified flying objects. Hallowell should know that a UFO shouldn’t be confused with something that’s claimed to be extra terrestrial in origin.  If that’s what Hallowell is really referring to, then any self respecting critical thinker wouldn’t use the term ‘broad-minded’ to describe someone who uncritically believed in an unproven and extraordinary proposition.  I suspect this trope was of Mike Hallowell’s own creation to put his own position in a good light. In logical fallacy terms, this is what is called a ‘straw man’.

The following comment misrepresents/assumes UFOs as extra-terrestrial.  To keep things simple, I’ll use his definition.

“Well, I’ve a few questions I’d to put to those who aren’t just content with denying the existence of UFOs, but also vilifying those who do.”

Does an editor actually read Hallowell’s submissions?  Is this a grammatical blunder or does Hallowell want to put questions to those who deny the existence of UFOs AND vilify those who deny the existence of UFOs?

“The universe is a big place, and as far as I’m aware, we earthlings haven’t yet explored every nook and cranny of it.”

As far as I’m aware no-one is suggesting that the universe isn’t really really big, and most physicists agree that at our current understanding of the laws of physics, humans are unlikely to get to see more than a tiny portion of it.

“How the sceptics can then say that there isn’t life in outer space is beyond me. How could they know?”

Again, I’m not aware that this homogenous band of ‘the sceptics’ that Hallowell is conjuring say any such thing.  I certainly don’t.  Maybe one or two who fit Hallowell’s skewed definition of sceptic do, but by making any such claim it’s difficult to comprehend how they can be classified as sceptics.  Scientists and probability suggest that extra-terrestrial life is out there.  I’m calling this as a straw man.  Or clumsy writing.

“Have we been visited by more advanced lifeforms from other worlds?”

Let’s see what the evidence says: No.

“The only cogent (but not necessarily correct) argument I’ve ever heard is that the vast distances between star systems would make travelling to them impossible.”

Agreed, it’s a reasonable position to take, based on our current understanding of the laws of physics.  But that may change as new discoveries are made.

“Well, NASA and other bodies have been looking at several theoretical possibilities as to how this could be accomplished for some time.”

Yes, but you know what?  Their work is based on mathematics, science and experiment.  Also, calling NASA in on your side seems a little ironic, when it’s not clear if NASA’s boffins agree with Mike Hallowell’s assessments of visitations by little green men.  I suspect the consensus of NASA doesn’t fall in his favour.

“The general consensus seems to be that it would be at best difficult, and at worst impossible.”

Didn’t he already say that?

“Of course, as our knowledge of the sciences advances, history tells us that what seems impossible today may simply be difficult tomorrow, and what is difficult today may prove to be as easy as falling off a log next week.”

And it’ll be through proper science, not from presumptions borne out of little more than cultural bias and wishful thinking.

“Any pronouncement that interstellar travel will never be possible is very presumptuous indeed.”

Yes it would be.  That’s why very few physicists or sceptics actually make such a claim.  We’re back into straw man territory.

“Whether we have actually been visited by extraterrestrial life is another matter, of course.  Again, how do the sceptics know?”

They don’t.  And neither does Hallowell.

“Were they personally present at every alleged UFO sighting or alien encounter?”

Nope, and neither was Hallowell.  Now he’s just being absurd, as well as employing what looks like a warped relativist fallacy.  However, that’s not to say that sceptics haven’t seen UFOs.  I have, but my only safe conclusion was that it was unidentified, not that it came from another planet.

“No; therefore they simply have no way of establishing that the witnesses were either mistaken, hallucinating or lying.”

And neither does Hallowell, but those explanations he’s supplied seem very reasonable and rational, and much more probable.

“If interstellar travel is possible, then it is highly likely that a number of advanced civilisations have engaged in it and visited other worlds, including ours.”

No, it’s not ‘highly likely’.  Its idle speculation with a healthy dash of begging the question.

“Seen in this light, it actually makes more sense to believe in UFOs than not to.”

No it doesn’t, it’s utterly flawed logic and still idle speculation; a false conclusion based on an unproven premise.

“Sceptics (well, the rabidly cynical ones, anyway) are the first to shout, “Where’s the evidence?” when confronted with an alleged paranormal encounter.”

And rightly so.  What’s ‘rabidly cynical’ about that?  Oh, and here’s another debating tool, the ad-hominem, whilst deftly switching between cynic and sceptic. Ooh you nasty rabid sceptics!

“They’re missing the point. How many sceptics out there have evidence that they ate breakfast yesterday? None, more than likely, but we’d have no reason to disbelieve them.”

No, they’re not missing the point, they’re still waiting for evidence while  Hallowell uses the fallacy from absurdity.  No one would challenge the mundane claim of eating breakfast unless there was evidence showing otherwise.

“They might even have the eyewitness testimony of their spouse who shared breakfast with them.”

Yes, they would have some physical evidence too: their poo.

“Sceptics would argue that eating breakfast is a mundane event which is perfectly believable, while claiming you’ve seen an extraterrestrial craft and its occupants is not.”

Wow, Hallowell gets it right. But does he understand?  Clearly not:

“Actually, what this demonstrates is not that UFO sightings are false, but that the sceptics just don’t possess the vision to accept they might be true.”

‘Possess the vision’?  What on earth does that mean?  It’s utter nonsense.  And a bit new-agey.

“The witnesses were there at the time, the sceptics were not, so whose testimony would it be more logical to believe?”

The ones with evidence.  Oh, and as the sceptics weren’t there, they would have no testimony to produce.

“I can sympathise with moderate sceptics who do not accept the existence of UFOs, but who at least reached their conclusions after a period of sober reflection and research.”

What’s a moderate sceptic?  Someone who only partially thinks critically?  Or is it a sceptic who thinks ‘idiot’ but is too nice to say it?  What about someone who believes the testimony of an extraordinary event at face value and without evidence?  Does that count as sober reflection?

“Unfortunately, the rabid sceptics out there aren’t satisfied with this, and for some reason feel the need to decry those who claim to have seen UFOs as cranks and those who believe them as idiots.”

Uh-oh, there’s those pesky rabid sceptics again.  Agreed, it would be less than charitable to say that those who’ve seen a UFO are cranks or idiots, but the issue is a lot more complex than Hallowell’s black and white approach.  And sometimes, people are cranks and idiots.

“Why? Let me tell you; Deep, deep down they’re scared. They’re scared that we really have been visited by alien lifeforms, and so enter a state of denial which they reinforce by launching vicious, personal attacks on anyone who thinks differently.”

Now Hallowell is demonstrating psychic powers and seeing into the minds of people who don’t exist.  Now that is worrying.  Or is he just projecting his own anxieties?  Given the tone of this whole article this doesn’t look all that unlikely.

“That way, they can kid themselves that there are no UFOs and therefore there’s nothing at all to worry about.”

‘They’ don’t have to kid themselves about anything for which there’s no evidence.  Therefore, nothing to worry about.  Well, apart from the poor souls taken in by the ‘I want to believe’ culture, parted from their money or encouraged to believe they’ve been abducted and raped by aliens.  Now that is sick.

“If the only way they can maintain their shaky stance is by heaping abuse on those who think differently, then I pity them.”

I’m sure they’ll be heartbroken.

Okay, so I’ve possibly been a bit harsh. Or rabid even.

I’ve actually seen an unidentified flying object before.  However, my first thought wasn’t to jump to the conclusion that the object was from another world or dimension, but to try and work out what the UFO was.  I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for me to expect that others would apply the same level of critical thinking.  Even though I couldn’t work out what it was, I still couldn’t make the extraordinary leap that it was an extra-terrestrial vehicle.  Without evidence, I could just as easily speculate it was time-travellers from the future, angels, or fairies on their evening commute from their fairying work.

That way lies the void of ignorance, where all propositions are equally valid in the melting pot of bizarre beliefs and paranoid conspiracies.

To this day, I don’t know what that UFO was, but to presume it as extra-terrestrial is intellectual laziness.

From the argument presented by Mike Hallowell though, such critical thinking makes me a ‘rabid sceptic’, a bogeyman character so loosely defined it can mean what ever he wants it to mean.  It’s reminiscent of the Christian apologists’ mythical nemesis, the ‘militant atheist’, a lazy all-purpose ad-hominem which can be called upon when they are reasoned into a corner and they want to weasel an easy way out.

I read Mike Hallowell’s column every week.  Mostly it’s enjoyably harmless, but this week it had a nasty bitter taste of someone trying to make a point against a group of people who are possibly a significant chunk of his readership.  Because sceptics like puzzles and weird stuff too.

Let’s hope that Michael Hallowell gets his mojo back for next week and returns to his usual affable self.

Wallys of the weird

Most people will have seen the spooky shows on TV, Ghost Hunters, Most Haunted and so on to know that there’s a standard format.  People go into a spooky building, in the dark with eerie night vision cameras, jumping at every noise, temperature drop or imagined touches on the shoulder, then run out screaming. If they’re lucky, they’ve got a psychic with them to commune with the spirits, if not they resort to spiritual automatic writing or dabble with an ouija board.

Accounts of alleged paranormal incidents can feature shovelfulls of excited hyperbole and excruciating cliché.

Dare to criticise such practices, or have the temerity to ask for evidence, and you risk being labelled a rabid skeptic who doesn’t know anything, after all you weren’t there.  To self styled paranormal investigators, those with a skeptical approach are an enemy to their wisdom, a wisdom borne of front line paranormal investigation experience and the occasional spirit guide.

It’s refreshing then to read this article in the Salon which shows that skeptics aren’t alone in being the object of disdain of paranormal folk, they’re quite bitchy about each other too:

Nichols pointed out a laundry list of what he calls bad science in the series: Investigations always take place at night (Why would ghosts come out only then? How can you be a good observer in the dark?); investigators use unproven, “scientific seeming” instruments like magnetometers, which have ultimately failed to produce replicable results; they suggest that every odd sound, every “cold spot” and every “orb” (which have been explained away as side effects of digital cameras) are signs of ghosts. More generally, as Nichols put it, “they just run around like little girls.”

That about sums it up.  Yet people still watch the shows and read the books and newspapers full of unscientific unevidenced drivel.  Here in South Shields, our own local newspaper the Shields Gazette regularly features spooky articles with little more than anecdote and speculation fed on a diet of confirmation bias.

It shows that for the meantime at least, the public desire to believe in the supernatural and the extraordinary makes money, which makes the weird a lot more lucrative than scientific and rational explanations.