Featuring a keynote from author/illustrator Daniel Loxton, the lineup included presentations from over 20 speakers both local and international on topics ranging from cognitive bias and correlation versus causation to vaccination and climate change. Attended by over 150 people, LogiCON’s inaugural event was declared a success by all who participated: the feedback we’ve received has been wonderful, and GESS is already thinking about how to make LogiCON 2012 bigger and better!

Daniel Loxton, Photo by Rodrigo de la Jara

Inspired by our tag line “Critical Thinking for Everyone”, LogiCON was split into three simultaneous but separate tracks: an advanced track, a beginner track, and a kids’ track. By providing content that spanned these three tracks, we hoped to engage a wider and more diverse audience.

Presentations during the day included lectures, panels and workshops. Our speakers and panelists came from diverse backgrounds, including several university professors, a science journalist, science communicators, healthcare professionals, a radio host, a photographer, and two magicians among others. For a complete list of speakers and topics, visit the LogiCON Schedule and Sessions page, and stay tuned for the videos of select presentations over the next few weeks and months.

The highlight of the day was Daniel Loxton’s Keynote presentation titled “The Reasonableness of Weird Things”, given in the Telus World of Science’s Star Dome space. Augmented by a backdrop of his beautifully constructed slideshow projected against the star dome above the audience, Daniel reminded us how much skeptic and science enthusiasts have in common with people who believe in strange things. In the end the search for the truth drives us both: it is our methods — not our intentions — that differ. Daniel used his own personal narrative to enrich his talk, taking us through his own transition from believer to skeptic.

Daniel Loxton, Photo by Marc-Julien Objois

The kids track took place in various public spaces around the Telus World of Science and was designed to engage the families visiting that day. Michael Snyder created two walk-up demonstrations: the first, a demo on brains with real brains on display; second, an interactive water taste test where participants discovered how easily our minds and opinions can be fooled.

Paul Hinman brought a geiger counter and gave fantastic walk-up demos on radiation, helping kids understand the difference behind good and bad radiation.

Paul Hinman's Radiation Table, Photo by Rodrigo de la Jara

GESS photographer Marc-Julien Objois gave a presentation on how perfectly normal tricks of light can produce strange looking results in photographs, and then helped the kids create their very own ghost photos using a double exposure effect, with them as the “ghost”.

Later that afternoon, local magician Sheldon Casavant took the stage in the Telus World of Science Star Dome theatre to help kids understand some of the methods behind the apparently magical, and revealed the secret behind a magic trick they could use to astound their family and friends.

GESS would like to extend our thanks to everyone who presented and participated in panel discussions: without your enthusiasm, LogiCON would not have been nearly as successful.

We would also like to extend our gratitude to all those who volunteered and were instrumental in putting LogiCON together: from day-of registration volunteers to the committee who took on coordinating the event back in September, everyone came together to create a five-star event.

LogiCON 2011 Volunteers, Photo by Marc-Julien Objois

Thank you to our sponsors for this event, including the James Randi Educational Foundation, which came through with financial support that allowed us to create a truly excellent event.

GESS also wishes to thank those who supported us by lending their expertise, meeting space, and airwaves. A very special thank you to Desiree Schell and K.O. Myers of local Edmonton science radio show Skeptically Speaking, and to the University of Alberta Business and Beyond Toastmasters Club.

Stay tuned for news of LogiCON 2012 and a brand new website rollout in the coming weeks. The LogiCON committee is already hard at work creating plans for next year, and we hope to see you all there.

Read more news, responses and recaps to LogiCON:

• Daniel Loxton’s recap and thoughts on LogiCON at Skeptiblog.
• Logical Monsters: conference hopes to teach scientific method from Edmonton newspaper Vue Weekly.
• Edmonton LogiCON One Day Skeptic and Science Conference from the Saskatchewan Skeptics Blog.
• Park-raised magician speaks to skeptics from the Sherwood Park News.
• Sheldon Casavant Speaking at LogiCON from the Canada’s Magic Blog.

When we held our Skepticamp, something we noticed was that, to our surprise, we ended up with a fairly general audience. We had a lot of people turn up who weren’t necessarily skeptics, but were nevertheless interested. We don’t know what the typical demographics of a Skepticamp is, but this was something that really got us thinking.

We had a meeting soon after the event in which we broke down what worked, what didn’t, and what we thought we could accomplish next time. One thing that we wanted to build on was getting more “outsiders” to attend, and so increasing the number of newcomers became our primary goal.

With months of planning and a smooth execution on April 9th, the event now barely resembles the Skepticamp that it grew out of—perhaps most significantly, yes, we’re curating speakers. The Telus World of Science agreed to host us, we got Daniel Loxton as the keynote speaker, were fortunate to include among our speakers K.O. Myers and Barbara Drescher, and we had many local experts from the University of Alberta and the Edmonton community. We had workshops for kids and advanced and beginner talks. Attendees did have to pay the admission cost of the Telus World of Science, but were allowed free reign of the facility, and most excitingly for us, we’ll were open to drop-in traffic from the everyday World of Science crowd.

Question 6 on IndieSkeptics’ “Top 7 reasons SkeptiCamp sucks” page asks what the value of an event not focused on outreach is. The answer given is that not all events have to be focused on outreach. While true, it’s our feeling that outreach is something that skepticism is sorely lacking. Here in Edmonton we have a fantastic team, a strong skeptical community, and a wider community that appears quite happy to show up and learn a little something about science. We saw the opportunity to make the outreach event that we wished already existed elsewhere, so we got to work.

Once we knew that we were no longer making a Skepticamp, we had a discussion about the word “skeptic.” Ultimately, we did decide to shy away from it. Whether or not it should, it does have some negative connotations. It also suffers from being routinely used in many different contexts, meaning that we have to explain it to outsiders every time. It’s rampant in philosophy, it’s commonly used in everyday life, then we have things like climate change skeptics, and our skepticism. As much as we may wish we could exclusively own the word, each of these uses is entirely legitimate.

We could argue on this topic all we wanted, but what matters is that this isn’t a battle we need to fight. If this were an event for rallying people already identified as skeptics, then we would of course use the word. But this wasn’t an event made by skeptics, for skeptics (which is not to say that those events aren’t important). They were welcome to attend, of course. Many did, and they enjoyed the talks as much as anyone. We chose topics that we felt were accessible for everyone, and we felt the name should reflect that.

We don’t want to compete with Skepticamp. We remain big fans of the model, and wish anyone wanting to try one the very best of luck. We certainly value what we learned, and we’ve been able to take those skills to try something that we’re really excited about. Now that it’s over, we’ll be doing the same breakdown of the event that we did the first time, but the general feeling so far is that we achieved what we set out to do.

If dropping the word “skeptic” worries anybody, then I suppose all I can say at this point is to look at what we did, and decide if LogiCON, on its own merits, was a worthwhile endeavour. We’re certain that it was, and look forward to making the next one even better.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Paranormal Investigator Benjamin Radford to Speak In Alberta

9/23/2010: The Center for Inquiry, CFI Calgary and the Greater Edmonton Skeptics are pleased to announce three appearances by writer and scientific paranormal investigator Benjamin Radford. Radford is one of only a few investigators in the world who approaches paranormal claims from a skeptical, scientific perspective.

On Thursday, October 21st, Radford will present “Reflections on a Decade of Paranormal Investigation” at the University of Calgary. Radford will draw from dozens of case studies over a decade of personal investigations as he discusses the nature of “unexplained mysteries” such as ghosts, Bigfoot, crop circles, and psychic powers. What does science say about the evidence for these topics? What is the nature of the “unexplained?” Why is there still debate about these issues?

The presentation will take place at 7:30 pm in room CHC 119 on the University of Calgary campus. Skeptics and believers alike will enjoy this interesting and informative talk, which features plenty of time for audience questions.

Radford will reprise his presentation in Edmonton on Friday, October 22nd, at 7 pm in room CAB 243 on the campus of the University of Alberta. Admission for either session is $7.00 for the public and $4.00 for students. Friends of the Center can attend at no cost.

On Saturday, October 23rd, Radford returns to the University of Calgary for “The Real X-Files: a Scientific Paranormal Investigations Workshop.” In the movies and on television, investigating a haunted house, a Bigfoot sighting, or a crop circle looks easy. How do real-life paranormal investigators go about separating
truth from myth?

In this unique, intensive workshop, Radford will explain the step-by-step process he has employed in over a decade of investigations, including thinking critically, evaluating unusual claims, interviewing eyewitnesses, and conducting field experiments. Rather than attempting to prove or disprove the existence of these phenomena, attendees will learn Radford’s methods for understand and explaining these mysteries using science and evidence.

The workshop will be held at 3:30 pm in room ICT 114 on the University campus. The class size is limited, and you must register to guarantee a space. Admission is $25 for the public, $20 for students, and $10 for Friends of the Center.

Benjamin Radford is the managing editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, columnist for LiveScience.com, and author of five books and hundreds of articles on science literacy, investigation, and the paranormal.

The Center for Inquiry is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, recognized as a 501(c)(3) charity in the United States. The mission of the Center for Inquiry is to foster a secular society based on science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. Learn more at http://www.centerforinquiry.net/

Contact:
Calgary: Nathan Phelps, Executive Director, CFI Calgary
403-808-5781 or nphelps@cficanada.ca
Edmonton: Desiree Schell, Greater Edmonton Skeptics Press Secretary
780-318-3363 or desiree@skepticallyspeaking.com

From the article:

Privately funded science, of course, isn’t affected by any government gag order. It’s notorious for being biased, flawed, and misleading, because often, the person or group supplying the money for these studies is hoping for a specific conclusion. What this means is not necessarily that all privately funded studies are untrustworthy, but that extra care when reading, and reading about, these kinds of studies is necessary. Historically, tobacco companies spent decades trying to manipulate the evidence that cigarette caused lung cancer, funding studies to research alternate explanations for the disease, such as pollution or asbestos.

But surely, if there were some way that scientists could get paid for their hard work without the pressure of arriving at a predetermined conclusion, more valuable scientific research would be done.

Government-funded science should offer that opportunity. Scientists employed by the government generally submit their papers to journals for peer review, the process whereby other experts in a specific field review a scientific paper, looking for holes in their method or errors in their analysis, and give feedback to the authors, as well as approve of a new paper’s legitimacy before a journal publishes it.

Read the full article by Ryan at The Gateway.

Note that I’ve modified the format a bit to group the content better since things were starting to get confusing and long. There are now sections for multi-post recaps, single post recaps, replies to specific talks, and other content like videos, pictures, etc.

For those who couldn’t attend or who did and are trying to catch up. I’ll be updating and adding new links as more content becomes available. If you have one you don’t see on this post, please leave a comment and I’ll make sure it gets added.

Multi-Post Recaps:

• The Friendly Atheist (@hemantmehta on Twitter) has been liveblogging since Friday morning with some help from Blag Hag Jen McCreight and @UAJamie, and has some great running commentary of the speakers and the panel discussions peppered with loads of photos, quotes and even video content.
  • Liveblogging Intro
  • Friday Morning
  • Friday Early Afternoon
  • Friday Late Afternoon
  • Saturday Morning
  • Saturday Afternoon
  • Sunday Morning
• From The Skeptical Review:
  • The Amazing Meeting 8, Day 1 : “This is my first TAM so I have no basis for comparison. I’m also not much of a conference go’er so I’m not even sure how TAM stacks up against DragonCon or more prosaic conferences database administrators, biochemists, and paper salesmen go to.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8, Day 2: “I sat about six rows back for the live taping of SGU. You kind of munch your food in your seat as you await the start of the SGU taping. The schedule indicated there were two live tapings, one Friday morning and one Saturday morning. At first I assumed they’d be doing two shoes but after Friday’s taping ended without Science or Fiction, I realized they tape the show over two days and then make one show out of it.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8, Day 3: “Massimo is always a compelling speaker owing to his great knowledge from several domains of knowledge and his charming mildly accented voice. Massimo, building on his Nonsense on Stilts book, decided to turn his eye towards skeptics themselves.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8, Day 4: “Sunday is mostly a chill out day at TAM. Various attendees get to present short (15 minute) talks/papers. Again, these tend to be very good.”
  • TAM 8 Parting Thoughts: “There was some grousing about this TAM not being live streamed like TAM 7. In one way that was a shame because it was the live streaming that really motivated me to attend TAM 8. There seemed to be a lot of fun and energy. TAM 8 attendance was up 30% (in a down turn that doesn’t look like it’s going to be over anytime this decade) and I’d like to think the live streaming had something to do with that.”
• From Atlanta Skeptics:
  • TAM8 — First Thoughts: “It is no small thing for me to be out here. I’m not alone of course, may of the Atlanta Skeptics are out here with me — which is a comfort. My co-hosts to MonsterTalk Ben Radford and Dr. Karen Stollznow are here too, the first time we’ve all been together since starting our podcast.”
  • TAM 8 — Thoughts About Day 2: “Friday was really a packed day of intellectual discussions and delightful talks. It’s such a thrill for me to be able to hear these well informed experts get up and talk about big ideas, and to be able to get up after the talk and have post-talk discussions with well informed attendees from around the world.”
• From Phil Ferguson at Skeptic Money:
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 1 Thursday — Skepticism in the Classroom: “Our first official event was Workshop 2B: Skepticism in the classroom. This was started by Michael Banford; he is the director of Education for the JREF. We also heard from my good friend Matt Lowry (The Skeptical Teacher). He shared some of his real world class experiences with us.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 1 Thursday — Skepticism and Feminism: “On Thursday afternoon the Perfect Wife and I went to a session on Skepticism and Feminism. This event was run by the Skeptchicks.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 2 Friday Morning Summary: Mostly photographs. “Every year at TAM there is a Thursday reception where many of the speakers show up early and mingle with the common folk. However, as TAM has grown this event has become more structured and has now lost some of its charm.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 2 Friday Afternoon Summary: Mostly photographs. “Then we had “The Talk” from Phil Plait. It was about helping more people by being nice and not rude. This seemed to get the most discussion at TAM. Everyone had an opinion.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 3 Saturday Morning Summary: “After another live recording of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe we heard from Massimo Pigliucci. He talked about skepticism and how much we can do. It was pointed out that some atheists are not skeptics, like Bill Maher.
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Day 3 Saturday Afternoon Summary: “Above is David Javerbaum. He has eleven Emmy Awards and is the former executive producer of The Daily Show. He was a funny guy. He started his talk with an opening prayer and later when asked questions called some girl an uppity chick.”
  • The Amazing Meeting 8 — Skepchick Party and Sunday: “Then we went to the Skepchick party… It was only a mile away from the casino. You could not find a better location and the house was amazing. There was also a costume contest. The best costume was to be judged by the drunken hoard.”
• From Encyclopaedia Billtannica:
  • Intro to TAM8: “I also want to comment on the effect of Twitter as a live commenting medium throughout TAM8 and how tweets formed the basis of a lot of analysis of the speeches by those who weren’t there. This is turning out to be an unexpected development to me and it has had some positive and some negative effects on the discourse of the skeptical community at large, in my opinion.”
  • The TAM8 Watershed: “There was a theme that developed over the weekend in some of the speeches that I think will be remembered as an overall tone for the conference and perhaps as a watershed moment in the skepticism movement. Although Carol Tavris and Steve Cuno had similar things to say, I am referring most to Phil Plait’s speech, in which he implored us, all of us, to craft our message with the goal of effectively promoting skepticism, not just expressing ourselves.”
• From 4.5 Billion Years of Wonder:
  • TAM 8 in quick review: “As always, the SGU dinner was a highlight of my TAM. I even wore a dress for it this year, and I never wear dresses. And of course the two hours of live SGU in the morning were definitely worth dragging myself out of bed earlier than I ever get up for work these days.”
  • The Diversity of Skeptical Thought: “I think the most important point in this underlying theme was actually made by someone who did not have a formal speech — Hal Bidlack, the MC. At the beginning of TAM, he said that this would be his last one. Later, I managed to catch him in one of his rare five seconds of standing still, and asked him if he meant as MC or just in general. He said it would probably be his last TAM ever. And when I asked him why, he said “Creative differences”.:
• From Dylan Keenberg at Woo Fighters:
  • TAM 8 Summary — Thursday: “Thursday programming of The Amazing Meeting primarily consists of optional workshops up to the event’s opening reception in the evening. This year’s offerings did not interest me enough to pay additional fees for them, but while there were not a lot of events to participate in there were still a number of notable experiences.”
  • TAM 8 Summary — Friday (Part 1): “The experiences that I obtained through Friday’s offerings can be categorized no more acutely than inspirational. The day’s talks covered a number of topics and were given by experts in a variety of fields, each tethered to the sturdy foundation of critical thinking. The diversity of subjects made each segment intriguing and that the topics are kept from attendees beforehand provided a welcome anticipation.”
  • TAM 8 Summary — Friday (Part 2): “After Simon Singh, Joe Nickell took to the stage to discuss his experiences of going undercover to investigate paranormal claims. Nickell, called by Paul Kurtz “the modern Sherlock Holmes”, creates false personas and then takes part in alleged supernatural rituals. He discussed debunking mediums at Camp Chesterfield, infiltrating the religious camp of Johnny God, being “cured” of made up illnesses by Benny Hinn, and counter-investigating the psychic investigation work of Phil Jordan.”
  • TAM 8 Summary — Saturday (Part 1): “Saturday proved to be another rousing conference of diverse minds and varied expertise, beginning with further perspectives on the state and position of skepticism movement, drifting into talks of aliens and paranormal investigations, and concluding with an interview of one of the world’s most famous atheists. There was even some humor thrown in amongst the heady talks, so I felt that Saturday was a real treat!”
• From Bad Engineering:
  • Report from TAM 8 (part 1): “The Amazing Meeting 8 is being held right now in Las Vegas and I am here with 1300 other skeptics and luminaries from the skeptic world. Notable presentations from yesterday include…”
  • Report from TAM 8 (part 2): “I was looking forward to this speech and I wasn’t disappointed. Jennifer Michael Hecht is the author of several books … and her background in humanities was a breath of fresh air in the room and her passion and interest in the subject of the history of science and faith was infectious.”
• From Blag Hag:
  • TAM8 Part 1 — Fangirling: “The Amaz!ng Meeting was, well, amasing. It can be succinctly summarized as a four day long skeptical orgasm… And by that I mean an orgasm due to geeking out about skepticism, not that you’re skeptical of your orgasm. Because the latter wouldn’t be that amazing.”
  • TAM8 Part 2 — More Fangirling: “At one point during the conferences Eugenie Scott from the National Center for Science Education made a guest appearance! She had just finished hiking in the Grand Canyon and stopped by TAM before her flight. I did a little evolution fangirl flail and ran off to go meet her.”
  • TAM8 Part 3 — One Last Fangirling: “The real story from Saturday night was the Skepchick Bordello party. I didn’t really have a costume, so I just wore a low cut shirt to fit in with the Bordello theme. Thankfully a reader stumbled into me and gave me an extra Sheriff pin he had, so I was all set.”
  • Women and Feminism at TAM8: “I do want to comment on women and feminism at TAM8, especially since this was a bit of an issue last year. Keep in mind this is just my experience from a single TAM, since it was my first time going. Even though I remember all the blog posts from last year, I can’t fairly compare it to past events.”

Single Post Recaps:

• At TAM 8, Having Great Time, Wish You Were Here from Steven Novella at NeuroLogica: “I am having a great time meeting people who listen to the SGU or read NeuroLogica or SBM regularly — putting faces to some commenter pseudonyms. But I am also very busy. Yesterday I held two SBM workshops (the room was packed for both).”
• Monitoring things from the Amazing Meeting 8 from Orac at Respectful Insolence: “My wife and I are here at TAM8, and so far things have been a blast. The Science-Based Medicine Workshops yesterday when quite well, and I’m told that my talk actually wasn’t half-bad.”
• Babbler Infiltrates The Amazing Meeting 8 from The Bolingbrook Babbler: A humourous recap of TAM, as only the Babbler can provide. “Minutes after disrupting Adam Savage’s speech, and arguing with skeptics in the hallway, Dischum, an alien skeptic, abducted the two moon landing deniers.”
• TAM 8, July 8-11 2010 from The Next Generation Skeptics: “As my fifth TAM and eighth event with the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), the organization that created TAM, I must say that TAM 8 was one of the best events I have ever had the privilege to attend.”
• The Amazing Meeting 8: Skepticism 2.1 (reboot) from ICBS Everywhere: “Wow. Someone hit the “reset” button on the community’s culture. There were a few — very few — dark spots in it for me, but these were grossly overshadowed by positives.”
• TAM 8 pt 1 from Fledgeling Skeptic: “My favorite personal moment: I got to meet Adam Savage and talk to him for a few minutes. He was a very sweet man and very attentive to what everyone was saying to him. He was engaging and very much present to everyone he spoke with.”
• TAM Takeaway — I Heart You Guys from Doubtful: “Certain moments I’ll keep forever: the musk sticks tasting party, the girfriends discussion in the corner of the bar, the ‘what’s your favourite monster’ roundtable dinner, hot tub soup, helping out as a JREF volunteer, cruising the strip in a convertible with rocking tunes, running into the Australian skeptics downtown, people stopping to say ‘hi’ because they knew my name or picture, telling my favourite high profile skeptics how much I appreciate them…”
• I’m Back (from TAM8) from mymatedave: Mostly pictures. “The Amazing Meeting 8 was, well, amazing. I met a lot of new people I’ve only known online, saw a lot of people I met last year and had a terrific time seeing all speakers. The first picture is the one I’m happiest about, because not only did I get to have a picture taken with this very amazing, witty old guy, I also had a very cool chat with him and the President of the Singularity Institute about the technology, politics and social impact of the Singularity in the hotel bar.”
• The Amazing Meeting 8 Roundup from The Jewmanist: “I only paid for Saturday’s events and got sick early on Thursday. It lasted right on through ’til Sunday so I missed even more events that I originally planned on. I know a lot of people got sick as well after their stay at South Point but mine came prior.”

Responses to Specific Talks/Events:

• TAM 8: Thoughts from The Angry Atheist Geek: “Do I agree with Phil on a lot of levels? Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I really do. I suppose we shouldn’t be jerks most of the time and that it really doesn’t help… however, I’ll go one step further and simply say ‘Everyone is different,’ and that there actually is a ‘logical’ place for people being dicks in this world.”
• “Don’t be a dick”? Sometimes we need to… from the Atheist Climber: Response to the Twitter conversation during/after Phil Plait’s talk. “There is a time and a place for ridicule. Some people only respond when they have their faith in irrationality shattered. And some people need to be publicly humiliated before their peers before they can see just how ridiculous their viewpoints may actually be. But keep in mind, this will not change the mind of the individual being ridiculed. What it can do is change the minds of those who listen to the irrational person, people seeing both sides of the debate can evaluate both sides of an argument and come to a conclusion for themselves.”
• The Million Ghost March from Skeptorcism: “After posting this information on Twitter, some things became obviously clear. First, there were people who still disagreed with me on this issue, stating that it could just be a measure to do damage control. Secondly, assumptions based upon prior experiences, rather than evidence, are heavily at play here.”
• Scientists Doing Science from The Sunny Skeptic: “Why does this seem like such an odd idea to people? I overheard a girl here at TAM complaining: ‘Everyone says they like Massimo, but I don’t. Why should he get to say that only scientists should do scientific statistical analysis?’ Really? Why? He told you — you’re not trained or educated in it, and even if you are in one form of science, that does not guarantee you will be able to form valid conclusions regarding any other form.”
• A Short Note on Dawkins and Anti-Fantasy Reading for Children Sentiments at #TAM8 from Kylie Sturgess of PodBlack Cat: “Should the censorship of fantasy be a goal, in order to promote critical thinking? I’d say no. And I’d say that for those who rubbish the genre fantasy, to come up with any kind of justification based upon research that will back that up, beyond ‘Oh, but I HEARD that Harry Potter has set back literacy levels!‘ As Dr Gay herself alluded to on Twitter… isn’t the removal of Harry Potter what the extremist fundamentalist religions do?”
• Find the Missing Kidney (and heal my arm) from dangblog: “Ikonen wasn’t the only person claiming special powers. During one panel discussion a man stood up and asked James Randi if he could apply for the prize. He said he could reduce or eliminate both pain and numbness in the skin of an injured person. He mentioned mastectomy wounds in particular. Since I have a numb area where my arm was operated on twice, I found this man during a break and asked him to restore the feeling. He said he mainly works on the abdominal area of a woman, but he’d give it a try.”
• CAM and Animal-Based Research from Dr. Ray Greek at Opposting Views: “David Gorski, MD, PhD spoke on the topic of CAM and while I strongly disagree with Dr Gorski on the predictive value of animals in research, I agree with his position on CAM and would like to briefly address some points that he made.”
• The “Don’t Be A Dick” Heard Round the World from Epsilon Clue: “Undoubtedly the most controversial, most thought-provoking talk at TAM 8 was Phil Plait’s “Don’t be a dick” talk, in which he decried what he sees as the rise of incivility in the skeptical blogosphere.”He wrote it down ahead of time so as not to ad lib and accidentally say something he didn’t mean, and since I have a recording of it, I should really quote him (slightly cleaned up) and not paraphrase, so as not to distort his meaning.
• Physics of Board Breaking & Karate at The Amazing Meeting 8 from The Skeptical Teacher: “Last year I performed the bed of nails demonstration and explained the physics involved, but this year I decided to do the hitting, so I gave another skeptical physics lesson — this time on karate and board breaking.”
• Feminism & Skepticism Panel at The Amazing Meeting 8: “I decided to attend partly because I am a board member on the Women Thinking Free Foundation, and also because I’m curious to see skeptical things from a female perspective. I transcribed what I could of the discussion, and I include it below for your edification.”
• Play Nice, Skeptics: “Seems like a primary theme at TAM 8 was about how, if you want to change someone’s mind, it’s probably not effective to call that person a moron. That was Phil Plait’s talk. That was the thrust of Carol Tavris’ talk, and also a theme of the Sunday morning presentation by Steve Cuno. An astronomer, a social psychologist, and a marketing professional — who can argue with that team?.”
• Some More on Not Being a Dick from Epsilon Clue: “After all, we talk and write for all sorts of different reasons. Not all of us can, or want to be, teachers. Nor is that all that our readers want to read. FSM knows I enjoy reading Phil Plait and Ed Yong, but I’d go spare if those were the only voices on my side on the Internet. I also want there to be George Hrabs, Roy Zimmermans, Christopher Hitchenses, Hunters, and so on. And let’s face it: a good rant is fun to read.”
• The Little Dude from the Moon at TAM 8 from Depleted Cranium: “At least one conspiracy-obsessed heckler did attend, and attempted repeatedly to heckle Phil Plait and Adam Savage. Jarrah White is about as committed to the belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked as one can be. He’s already produced (at last count) 393 YouTube videos on the subject — all of them absolutely stunning in thir lack of technical and scientific knowledge.”
• I did not enjoy TAM 8… here’s why from Godless Grad Student about the lack of accessibility at the South Point Hotel and Casino: “TAM 8 was held in the South Point Hotel and Casino. Prior to getting on the plane, I called to make a reservation for the shuttle. At that time, I was told that all of their shuttles (airport and mall) were accessible. I also spent a good deal of time online reading about how Las Vegas (casinos) have ‘treated the disabled as first class citizens even before the ADA’ so I was looking forward to getting out and enjoying the city… In the past seven years I have used a wheelchair, I’ve stayed in a number of hotels; South Point was, by far, the least accessible.”
• Skepticulous from The Man Version: “So The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 (or TAM) is over. It’s always a lot of fun, especially since they moved it to the hottest part of the summer in Las Vegas. But the camaraderie, the parties, the Vegas kitsch, and the arguments about whether you can be a Real Skeptic if you’re not also an atheist make this the most anticipated weekend of the year for a lot of us.”
• The Dick Delusion from PZ Myers at Pharynula: “I’ve been getting slapped upside the head with this ‘dick’ meme that’s roaring through the skeptic community lately, largely because it seems that any time someone makes a generic criticism of rude, abrasive, confrontational critics of foolishness, the audience all things of the life-size poster of PZ Myers they’ve got hanging on their bedroom door back home.”
• Don’t be a Dick? from The Atheist Experience: “I’ve been asked what I thought about Phil’s comments. To be clear, I have no reason to think that Phil has any idea who I am and I have no idea who he’s talking about (partially because he’s not very specific about that) … but I suspect that, on more than one occasion, I might qualify as a ‘dick’ by his definition or that of other people. Fortunately, the evidence about the impact of the much reviled ‘new atheists’ isn’t good for the ‘harming our cause’ doom sayers.”
• Teacher Workshop — “Skepticism in the Classroom” — at The Amazing Meeting 8 from The Skeptical Teacher: “First off was Daniel Loxton, author of the new children’s book called ‘Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be’, where he spoke about using evolutionary science as a good vehicle to get kids to think more critically at a younger age. I especially like Daniel’s references to using a Scooby Doo kind of format to get kids thinking about things…”

Videos, Pictures, Petitions, Resources, Interviews and Transcripts:

• The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 Flickr Group: Not many photos yet, but there are some good ones. Hopefully this will get built out once people get home and upload their photographs.
• Transcription of Adam Savage’s talk, Food for The Eagle, originally delivered to the Harvard Humanist Society in April 2010.
• Winnipeg skeptic Scott Carnegis has been uploading 30-60 second clips of various TAM 8 attendees from Dawkins to Randi on his YouTube account.
• Edmonton skeptic Marc-Julien has posted the first nine minutes of Richard Dawkins’ keynote interview by DJ Grothe on YouTube.
• Stop the sale of homeopathic “treatments” in Wal-Mart stores online petition: In response to an idea put forth during the Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chiropractic and other dubious health care systems panel.
• Skepticism in the Classroom Resources posted as promised by Barb Drescher from ICBS Everywhere.
• TAM 8 photo album on Picasa from Eric Broze.
• TAM 8 Flickr set from Edmonton skeptic Marc-Julien.
• Audio Interview with Phil Plait with The Friendly Atheist: “During The Amazing Meeting 8, Robin Ferguson and I sat down to talk with Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy. I had planned to transcribe it, but there’s so much interesting stuff Phil discussed — ranging from his “super secret project” to PepsiGate to not being a dick — that it was much easier to upload the audio and just put it out there.”

This is the second part of this report. If you have not yet read the first part, you can find it posted here

At the end of the first part, I asked you to think of questions that you would like to ask someone who has just witnessed a UFO event; so now let me anticipate the questions that you might have:

How fast were the UFOs moving?

How big were the they?

How far away were they?

Could you see any details on the UFOs?

What sound did the UFOs make?

Let me answer these questions in reverse order:

There was no sound other than the background hum of the city.

As far as details of the objects go: there really weren’t any. They were all the same and I would simply describe them as being round and uniformly white. I have no real estimate of their brightness. They definitely were not brilliant, but did stand out very well against the black sky

How far away were they? That is impossible to say. We were on a roof top with a clear view of the whole sky. The sky was clear, with not a cloud in sight. So the only thing that I can say about the distance to the objects is to say that they were somewhere between us and the Big Dipper.

How big were they? They were all about the same size, approximately ¼ of a degree in diameter and were separated from each other by about three to five degrees.

How fast were the UFOs moving? The UFOs swept out about 90 degrees of sky in under three seconds.

Were those the sorts of answers that you were expecting? Probably not if you had the image of a typical Larry King Live UFO episode in your mind. When reporting UFOs, most people make the mistake of trying to assign absolute sizes, speeds, and distances to an object that they are unable to identify. Let’s think about the geometry of the situation for a minute and consider the implications for size, distance and speed. If the objects had been fairly close to us, then they would not have been very large and would have been moving with modest speed. However if the objects had been at some middle distance, then they would have been rather large and moving at a high speed. Of course, if the objects were at an extreme distance from us then they would have been absolutely huge and moving with incredible speed.

So back at the roof top observatory, the two of us were intently scanning the sky, looking for UFOs. They did return; four round white UFOs approaching us from the south again. On their first pass, we were taken completely by surprise as the UFOs came and left before we were able to get our wits about us. As they made their second pass, we were staring intently at the objects trying to figure out exactly what we were looking at. As the objects passed overhead, the drama of the incident evaporated in an instant. Both of us made a positive identification and uttered the same word at the same time: “Pigeons!”

In an instant, four UFOs had been replaced by four pigeons flying overhead. So what was going on in our minds to turn pigeons into UFOs? This is a classic case of “Seeing What You Are Believing.” I tend to think of information from our senses as passing through filters —or being assembled onto templates by our brains — as we are trying to make sense of what is happening around us. This means that the same sensory information can be interpreted quite differently by our brains on different occasions, depending on what filters or templates may be in operation at any given moment. In the case of our pigeons, light from the street lamps below was being reflected back to us much better from their round white bellies than from the rest of the pigeon, making the bellies stand out much more against the black sky. Essentially, as soon as we saw the four round white objects, a UFO filter popped up in our brains. It is absolutely amazing how effectively the UFO filter filtered out the rest of the pigeons. On the first pass, there was no hint at all of a pigeon. By the time that the pigeons made their second pass, each of us had managed to set aside the UFO filter and replace it with more of a “OK, what are we really looking at?” filter. As the pigeons approached, those round white bellies were so mesmerizing; it took a lot of concentration to see past the bellies to the rest of the pigeons.

From time to time, pigeons would fly over the roof top observatory, and each time I noticed them, I initially saw round white objects. As with an optical illusion to which I knew the real answer, I initially saw the illusion. Each time I had to concentrate to see past the illusion, to a pigeon.

There is an interesting epilogue to this event. Some time later, during a public viewing session, I was once again standing out on the roof looking up at the sky. Standing near by, was a young fellow, about 14 years old, when a lone pigeon flew overhead. The young fellow turned to me and said “WOW! Did you see that? A UFO just flew across the Big Dipper!” “Yes” I replied, “That happens occasionally up here, and it turns out that they are not UFOs, but pigeons.” I then launched into an explanation of round bellies preferentially reflecting light and filters in brains preferentially selecting data, etc, etc. Even though this event predates the movie ‘Men In Black’ by about 2 decades, I must have been doing a pretty good impersonation of the Will Smith character trying to convince someone that they had not seen what they had just seen, because this young fellow was not having anything that I was telling him. He knew what he saw (well perceived actually) and he certainly did not see any pigeon. It was written all over his face, the absolute disbelief at what he was hearing. As the expression goes, I could almost see the wheels turning in his head, as he was trying to rationalize what I was saying with what he had seen (perceived). The expression on his face gradually changed from disbelief, through comprehension, to Eureka! as he was trying to figure out what was happening. He then took a step backwards, pointed a finger at me, and shouted “YOU’R PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!” I was completely taken aback by this and could not come up with a better response than “NO, NO, honestly, that was a pigeon!” And so he turned and walked away, apparently secure in the knowledge of two things. Firstly, there are Flying Saucers visiting us, and secondly, there is a grand conspiracy afoot to keep this knowledge from the general public. And all of this because he certainly did not perceive any pigeon.

As Phil Plait, of the Bad Astronomy Blog, has pointed out on a number of occasions, amateur astronomers usually do not report UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects). Why might that be? I think that I am safe in saying that the meaning of the acronym UFO has changed over the years. It used to mean: “I just saw something in the sky, and I have no idea as to what it might be.” Now UFO seems to mean: “I just saw an alien space ship (or Flying Saucer if you prefer) fly by.” Do amateur astronomers ever see an object in the sky that they are initially unable to identify? On occasion, yes we do; but with a little persistence, usually we are able to figure out what we are looking at. Once we have figured out what we are looking at, two things have happened. Firstly, the object is no longer unidentified, and secondly there is no Flying Saucer in sight. So by both meanings of UFO, there is nothing to report. But even though the end of the journey is something of a null result, perhaps the journey itself is worth reporting. Perhaps amateur astronomers should report an occasional interesting UFO. Perhaps I should report a UFO. So here you go Phil; “Ask and Ye shall receive.”

Back in the mid 1970s, when I was working for the University of Alberta, Department of Physics, in the Astrophysics Group, the astronomer in the group acquired a grant to upgrade the observatory, located west of the city, with a new larger telescope. Part of the project involved moving the old telescope into the city and installing it on the roof of the physics building, in a new sliding roof observatory. This new observatory was used for astronomy course labs and on Friday evenings, we held public observing sessions.

On one Friday evening, the sky was clear and the seeing was very good. After the public had left, the student volunteers, who had been helping out with the public observing session, took this opportunity to pursue their own interests at the telescope. Myself and one of the fourth year students were standing outside on the roof just looking up at the sky, when a flight of four UFOs passed directly over head. The UFOs appeared quite suddenly, about 45 degrees above the southern horizon, passed directly over head and disappeared, again quite suddenly, about 45 degrees above the northern horizon.

The UFOs were round and white, and were flying in a diamond formation; one in front, two on either side and one bringing up the rear. They swept out about 90 degrees of sky in under three seconds. Both of us had been facing south and we were now facing north, when the following conversation ensued.

Student:“Ahhh, did you see that?”

Me:“Yeah, I saw that all right.”

Student:“Okaaay. What was it?”

Me:“I don’t know, but let’s keep out eyes open. Maybe they will come back.”

So we both turned back to the south again and started scanning the sky; only this time we were not looking at the stars, we were looking for UFOs.

Before I carry on with this report, let me stop and ask if there are any questions. Suppose that this event ended right here (it doesn’t). What questions would you have for me? Do not read ahead just yet. Stop and think of what questions you would like to ask. Now imagine that you are watching this on Larry King Live. What units of measure do Larry’s guests usually use when describing UFO observations? What units of measure ought they be using?

Since this report is rather long for a web post, I am splitting it into two parts. I will post the remainder next week. jhw  Part 2 of this report is here.

The audio has problems, so you’ll have to crank it up at times. The debate begins about 6 minutes in.

Michael Horner argues that morality must come from a higher power (God) and that we have morals, and that we know morals exist, which proves the existence of God. Massimo Pigliucci argues that morality is very real, but exists only in the context of humanity as a combined genetic and social concept.