Pledge for women in technology
I signed a pledge today, and I hope many of you will do the same. I pledge to blog about a woman in technology on March 24, as part of Ada Lovelace Day.
Ada Lovelace Day was just begun by writer Suw Charman-Anderson in order to empower women in technology in a constructive way. She writes:
If women need female role models, let’s come together to highlight the women in technology that we look up to. Let’s create new role models and make sure that whenever the question “Who are the leading women in tech?” is asked, that we all have a list of candidates on the tips of our tongues.
The official pledge says that the pledge is not binding unless 1000 people sign up, which is a nice escape clause, but (given that there’s no enforcement mechanism anyway) I don’t see any reason not to write about a woman in technology no matter what. It’s a great topic, for a great cause.
As of this posting, there are 595 people signed up — that means 405 more to go.
So what are you waiting for? Go sign up for the pledge!
(Thanks to Peggy for her blog post pointing this out.)
Science and fiction
Science and fiction may sound like two opposing concepts. Surely fiction has little place in science. However, there’s plenty of room for science in fiction! The sci-fi genre has been close to my heart since elementary school, so I was happy to hear that there will be a session at ScienceOnline ’09 in January focusing on science communication through science fiction. It’s being co-moderated by Peggy Kolm (who writes the fantastic Women in Science, as well as Biology in Science Fiction which I just found out about today), and she’s asked science bloggers to answer a few discussion-provoking questions. It’s hard to tell if I’m a “science blogger,” but I’m definitely both a scientist and a blogger, so here are my answers.
What is your relationship to science fiction? Do you read it? Watch it? What/who do you like and why?
I read science fiction often, and watch it sometimes. (Sci-fi movies and TV shows are sometimes a little too overboard/silly with the special effects for my taste, and in my experience tend to butcher the science more often than written sci-fi does.) In general I think sci-fi appeals to me because of its capabilities to challenge our most basic assumptions and to explore human nature in different settings. Sci-fi is not just narrowly about imagining future technology, but rather about imagining future society in the context of human discoveries and how they influence our lifestyles. Also, I’m impressed by the many discoveries and inventions that were foreshadowed in science fiction, and to some extent as a scientist I read sci-fi to find new ways of thinking about research questions.
My favorite book of all time is Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, and I love the rest of that series as well. Some other examples of books I like for the above reasons are Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle and Galapagos, Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, and pretty much everything ever written by Philip K. Dick.
What do you see as science fiction’s role in promoting science, if any? Can it do more than make people excited about science? Can it harm the cause of science?
I don’t see science fiction so much as a tool for promoting science as such, though I suppose it has that effect on plenty of people. It can harm the cause of science if it’s unnecessarily alarmist. I think science fiction’s role with respect to science is primarily to give it context, to help us hypothesize about science ethics or to help us recognize benefits and drawbacks to thinking scientifically. Occasionally a sci-fi author’s message may be to discourage a certain path of R&D, or to discourage a certain style of scientific inquiry, but if that attempt at supposedly stifling science is based on a belief that such work would be unethical, I think it would be aiding the cause of science rather than harming it.
Have you used science fiction as a starting point to talk about science? Is it easier to talk about people doing it right or getting it wrong?
I haven’t used sci-fi all that much in this way, though it’s a great idea. It’s certainly easier to strike up a conversation with my fellow physics grad students by talking about people doing it wrong; the movie The Core is a classic in this regard. As a starting point for some more educational endeavor, I think the standard wouldn’t be so much whether the science was accurate or inaccurate, but rather whether the underlying science stuck out as strange to a viewer or reader. Often this would be blatantly inaccurate science, but I could easily imagine it being something verifiably true that happens not to match our real-world intuition. In either case, it’s a good hook to get people interested in the lesson to come.
Are there any specific science or science fiction blogs you would recommend to interested readers or writers?
I don’t have any specific blogs to recommend, but I would recommend the general guideline that writers make sure they are well-informed about the science they’re incorporating. There’s nothing that turns me off to a poem faster than an ill-advised metaphor about quantum mechanics. I’ll change the channel on the TV if I hear an astronaut’s dying screams as he drifts off into space. (I could go on, but I’ll spare you.) If you’re looking for blogs by scientists about their areas of expertise, the SEED ScienceBlogs are a good place to start.
Skeptical blogging brainstorm #3
In editions #1 and #2 of this series, I explained some ways I think atheist and/or skeptical bloggers can make and keep themselves relevant and useful. This is my last intended installment (at least, in such a formal sense), and I intend to use it to talk about getting the word out and educating the public. After all, the one good thing about having so many near-identical blog posts about Bigfoot, or about intelligent design, or whatever else, is that when someone searches the internet for “Bigfoot” or “intelligent design” their likelihood of finding a skeptical site instead of a credulous one is increased. Marginally, of course. Messing with Google rankings is a slow and dismal process. The goal, though, is an important one: making sure the public has an opportunity (and a meaningful probability) of hearing a skeptical perspective.
Perhaps the way to get better search traffic is something more along the lines of linking the word Expelled to the site Expelled Exposed when writing about Ben Stein’s movie. True, the traffic goes somewhere else, not our blogs (one reason I suspect it might be tempting for every blogger to write their own posts on these topics) — but if a good explanation has already been written with expertise, we should make a practice of linking to it when relevant, rather than wasting time and energy reinventing the wheel. I could imagine a pretty slick sidebar add-on or widget with a headline like, “There’s no evidence for:” and a (scrolling?) list of links beneath it, including whichever things you wanted to debunk.
With all that time we save linking to preexisting well-written skeptical essays, I’m sure we can come up with lots of other worthwhile discussion about how to more effectively express the value of a scientific mindset and a respect for evidence. Remember, lots of people aren’t on the internet as often as we are, and most people aren’t changing their mind because they read one snarky blog. They’re forming their opinions about science and evidence out there in the real world, so we should talk about and work towards taking our advocacy there.
I read several interesting posts a couple weeks ago by Steven Novella about how to improve science education, science textbooks, and support for science teachers. It’s clear just from the comments there that not everyone agrees with his opinions (although, in very large part, I do) but at any rate, it’s surely a conversation we ought to be having. Skeptics can make a great contribution to science education, in some cases by being great teachers or involved parents, but also just as regular, not-directly-related citizens, going to speak at a school board meeting or writing letters to local lawmakers. The education doesn’t just happen in school buildings, of course. Maybe we should be going door-to-door. (I know I linked a comic there, but in all seriousness, I love that idea.) Maybe we should be passing out flyers on the sidewalk in front of the Creation Museum or the Discovery Institute. These educational toys are a great example of thinking outside of the box about this issue. Both the strategies we should to get our message out and the content of our message are worth some discussion on our blogs.
As usual, I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts about this in the comments. More importantly though, I hope I’ve given you some food for thought if you have a blog of your own.
Skeptical blogging brainstorm #2
Following up on my first list of ideas, here are some more thoughts I have on what skeptics, atheists, and skeptical and/or atheist bloggers can do in order to add something new and repeat ourselves less. If you’re here via the Skeptics’ Circle #95 link to the earlier list, welcome! (And if you haven’t read the current Skeptics’ Circle, you’re welcome here too, but you should go check it out!)
The issue of community seems like the elephant in the room, which is why I want to focus on it now. We talk about the skeptical movement or the atheist community — but what are those? I feel like a shared respect for critical thinking is not enough to fuel a social organization. For a group focused on faith, it makes a bit more sense to have, well, a congregation. There are holy words to be studied and dogmas to be memorized; there are inner doubts requiring the support (or pressure, depending on how you see it) of a peer group to assuage them. I have a hard time imagining an atheist group meeting — what do you talk about there?
However absurd, I think we ought to try to foster these communities, since one real benefit to being part of a religious group is the fellowship and friendship it offers. It’s good for that to be available without having to profess beliefs in the literal truth of fairy tales and magic. So, we need to have something for those groups to do. That’s one topic for blogging I’d like to see more about. If you’re part of one of these organizations, what do you do? Even if you’re not, what do you think would make a good meeting? Do you play Trivial Pursuit? Watch movies like The Core and pick them apart MST3K-style? Do you organize a lecture series? (Who do you invite?) Tell us what works and what doesn’t, or what would get you to show up versus what would get you to unsubscribe from the mailing list. On a related note, I also like how the Skepchick blog makes use of the opportunity to advertise meet-ups.
We also need to have some open dialogue about how to make these groups what we collectively want them to be. I’ve already seen a bit of writing about how to make skeptical groups more inclusive, and how (or, whether) to reach out to demographics that are underrepresented without reason in most skeptics’ organizations, but I think more people should get involved in the discussion. A few good examples, in my opinion, can be found in this pro and this contra opinion about recruiting women into skeptical organizations, as well as this post on bringing people in the arts, humanities, and social sciences into the fold. I’m sure that topics that are not specifically related to diversity, but are more generally about recruiting and publicity successes and failures, would be well-received too.
I’m planning on writing one more installment in this series, on how to be most effective at reaching out to non-skeptics and getting our message across. In the meantime, please let me know in the comments if you think I make sense or if you think I’m a lunatic.
Skeptical blogging brainstorm #1
I said in an earlier post that I planned to do a bit of brainstorming on what we as skeptical and/or atheist bloggers ought to be doing with our time, if we’re not rehashing the old skeptical and/or atheist classics. (Forgive me if I conflate atheism and skepticism a bit in this post. In my experience around the blogosphere, the two respective groups of bloggers overlap quite a lot, and their overall objectives are very closely aligned, so for all intents and purposes of this entry they are the same.) Here is what I’ve thought of since then.
My primary inclination is to suggest that we include a larger range of issues within the skeptical canon. Instead of just writing about alternative medicine or alien sightings, we can find some other aspects of life to be skeptical about as well. We can question claims made in advertising, or critique the methods in academic papers. We can point out when politicians promote blatantly false ideas. Anything with facts is worthy of a skeptic’s attention. If you’re writing a skeptical blog, rather than just being a skeptic while blogging, I understand an inclination to stick with the standard sorts of debunking. As for the rest of us, though, there are topics we can shift towards so as not to be quite as redundant.
Straight-up activism is certainly a good idea as well. If we assume, as seems to be the case, that most people reading skeptical or atheist blogs are themselves skeptics or atheists, this could be a very effective way of organizing. Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist has recently tapped into this on behalf of Kay Hagan, a candidate for North Carolina state senate who got attacked for planning to meet with an atheist organization. There are lots of ways that a skeptical or atheist viewpoint is relevant to politics, and if you want to create real change in society in the direction of that viewpoint, you should work to elect people you believe represent it and vote out of office those who are counterproductive. In addition to just blogging about John McCain’s comments about a link between vaccines and autism, we should be protesting about it at his speaking events. (Maybe use your blog to assemble protesters.) In addition to just writing about false advertising claims made for alternative medicine, call on your local district attorney to prosecute chiropractors and crystal healers and homeopaths in your area when they make unsubstantiated claims of healing. (Maybe use your blog to distribute a template letter to send to the DA’s office.) There’s plenty of work to be done.
Finally, there’s the question of unity as a group. There’s a lot of talk about the “atheist community” or the “skeptical movement” and what its goals are. It’s difficult to have a movement or a coherent set of group goals without some infrastructure. As much as I’m wary of the election of an atheist pope or some such central authority of a group based on thinking for yourself, I think these organizations have a place at least insofar as lobbying and publicity are concerned. Rather than have people seeing one dude here or there interviewed on the local news, or have a legislator receiving an occasional letter from individual constituents, we want to present a stronger message. A spokesperson on TV saying he represents so many millions of people looks a lot more compelling. Many groups of this sort already exist, such as Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Center for Science Education, the Skeptics Society, and the Secular Coalition for America. (There are of course many others; this is just a sampling.) Joining and/or donating to these groups will make them more effective at publicizing skeptical and secular perspectives.
That’s all I’ve got for now, but not forever. I have a few other ideas still percolating, and I’ll post again about them soon. In the meantime, let me know what you think about these ideas — if they’re good, crazy, infeasible, irrelevant… whatever.
Skeptical blogging
I struggle with the idea of blogging about being a skeptic, or writing posts full of skepticism on beliefs that are widely held by a gullible public. What’s the point?
I know there are bloggers out there going point by point through lists of reasons to believe in God, refuting every dumb thing written on Conservapedia, or answering every anti-vaccinationist nut that writes a blog comment — and I’m happy that they’re doing it. I’m happy that there are lots of web sites explaining why homeopathy and acupuncture aren’t real medicine. I just don’t understand having the necessary motivation, given that so many of those websites exist and have existed for a while now, to write new posts about old issues that have already been covered. I know I usually can’t muster it, for two main reasons.
Reason 1: Redundancy. There are scores of blog posts out there explaining why crazy thing X is not worth believing in. I’m not an expert in the truth about crazy thing X, and while I might be able to explain the arguments in a slightly more articulate fashion than a few other people out there, I couldn’t add any substantive material. All I would be doing is repeating what’s already been written.
Reason 2: Audience. True, we do get the occasional hit from someone searching “no pain spray” on Google. I’m glad that people are finding my criticism in addition to online advertisements for the product. By and large, though, the people reading skeptical blogs are skeptics. The people reading atheist blogs are atheists. It’s fun to read someone really eviscerating the writings of Ray Comfort or Dinesh D’Souza, but almost no one who believes either of them is going to be reading along with you. Anyone who is is just looking to post an angry refutation, and isn’t likely to change their mind.
I get a sort of self-congratulatory feeling from the millionth post I read about Bigfoot hoaxes or alien sightings or the argument from evil. We’re not really convincing people, we’re just trumpeting how great we are that we are capable of reason. Yeah, it’s a nice feeling, and yeah, we’re not going to be encouraged to be reasonable by anyone else, but aren’t we wasting our time? It seems like we can all get together and agree that homeopathy is full of crap, then move on to applying our critical thinking skills to new issues.
When a newspaper writes an article about how awesome pet psychics are, fine, blog about how this is stupid. When a new study comes out finally doing a thorough scientific debunking of some woo, okay, blog about that. I’m not really talking about those things. What I mean is: We know that Answers in Genesis doesn’t care about scientific facts, and we know that intelligent design is creationism. We know that the only valuable aspects of chiropractic medicine are the same as the valuable parts of back massage. We also know that so-called psychics don’t have any special powers and are just good at fishing for answers from you. Merely explaining that these people are wrong is not giving new information.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, in terms of my own blogger’s-block issues, but it came to the forefront for me as I was looking around Edger. Let me first say that this is an awesome, new site for the skeptical youth community, and I encourage you to check it out. It’s a student initiative of the Center For Inquiry. By its own description, “Edger presents hard-hitting and reasoned news, views, and event promotion on issues pertaining to secularism, atheism, science, humanism, and the cosmos, and actively promotes and celebrates international freethought activism.” That sounds great to me. However, they did something I don’t understand.
Here’s the Edger post on homeopathy. It does a good job of clearly explaining the principles of homeopathic medicine and why they make no sense whatsoever. I’m not knocking that. It’s just that we already had that, here, here, here, and here. Also here, here, and here. Don’t forget here. Or the other 405,000 hits you can get searching “homeopathy fraud” on Google. Or the 21,800 for “homeopathy debunked,” or the 202,000 for “homeopathy scam.”
I know some of those Google hits are for sites titled things like “Homeopathy: Fraud, or the Most Awesome Thing Ever?” I also know that there are 7.5 million hits for just “homeopathy,” and plenty of them are not skeptical at all. I see the value of trying to play with Google rankings. I just think this is a long, slow way to go about trying to win over people to the skeptic side. If we look at expected return per unit effort, I think it turns out to be better for skeptical bloggers to stop writing brand new posts saying, “Hey! I found someone saying something dumb!” and spend that time brainstorming new ways to educate the public effectively. (I plan to do some of that brainstorming in a future post.)
Am I wrong? Is there some reason I’ve missed? Where do you get your motivation for skeptical blogging? Please let me know in the comments.