Talking the talk? Time to walk the walk

As a skeptic one of the things I would like to see from other people is an open mind. But sometimes it's easy forget you can be equally close-minded in your own beliefs.

It's not an easy thing to do, especially when you think you're being skeptical. Or in this case perhaps a tad cynical.

To say I'm not a fan of the social media phenomenon of changing your avatar or updating your status to support a particular cause is somewhat understating it.

It started with women posting the colour of their bra to support breast cancer awarness and it's been near constant since then.

The latest, changing your avatar to a cartoon character to show your support in the battle against violence on children, seems equally fatuous to me.

I mean who supports doesn't want to see breast cancer eradicated? Would not changing my avatar mean I was somehow advocating violence against children? Of course not.

In fact I made the point vociferously on Facebook and twitter and followed it up in the best way I thought possible - donating some money to the Starship Foundation.

I did this because I strongly believed that one million people changing their avatar will change nothing while actually giving some cash might do some good...

And there I sat, smug because I'd actually did something other than piss around with my picture on Facebook. Until someone sent me a direct message on Twitter.

"Quick question: had the Facebook campaign not been out there, would you still have made a donation today to Starship?"

And that's when it struck - that moment of realising you talk the talk but not always walk the walk.

The truth is I do donate to charity. I've raised thousands over the year. But the chances of me looking for a charity which can help children who have been abused and donating in the next few months was low.

So while I believed I was being open minded and skeptical I wasn't really.

I then had an ongoing conversation with that person who had changed their avatar, researched charities in New Zealand and then donated. And, as she rightfully pointed out, if she had done that then she's likely not to be the only one.

And by my donating I had proved her point. Although I didn't agree in the slightest with the campaign as a direct result I ponyed up cash. In her words 'Surely it's a good thing?"

That was an eye-opening conversation. We started off in polar opposite positions and ended up broadly agreeing. And it felt good.

Now I'm not arguing I was completely wrong. I still wish those who jump to show their support online would actually end up doing something more.

And the only discussion I've seen coming out of the issue has been about the cartoon character, not the problem.

But more importantly for a skeptic it's a gentle reminder that when you hope for people to open their mind you can't afford to close yours.

Skeptical, not cynical

First up, I'm incredibly excited about the launch of Sciblogs. My experience of New Zealand as an immigrant leads me to believe we often punch above our weight and it's great to see the Science Media Centre continuing that in an area close to my heart.

There are many great Kiwi bloggers writing about science and how it impacts on our lives and to have so many aggregated in the one place is a great achievement.

I was honoured to be asked to contribute to Sciblogs and delighted to be able to accept. For one thing in such esteemed company it's a nudge for me to write many more posts and keep a high standard.

We have our own scientific challenges in Aotearoa (just listen to talkback radio for a week and hear how many pseudoscientific adverts, advertorials and comments there are) and I look forward to writing about many of them in the future.

So welcome to a fantastic new phase for nz skeptic!

I hope many of you will be reading this blog for the first time so feel free to browse some of the (small) archive to get a better idea on what I write about.

But today I want to deal with one of the things skeptics are often accused of - and that's being overtly cynical rather than skeptical.

Of course there are many cynical skeptics - but this is a good time to point out one of the basic tenets of science, that correlation does not mean causation.

I could spend three hours writing and re-writing exactly why I think a cynic and skeptic aren't interchangeable but this passage from the Skeptic website's A Brief Introduction section says it far more eloquently than I could:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo.

This is wrong.

Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed.

In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true.

When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Of course requiring evidence brings skeptics into direct conflict with anyone or anything that has or requires faith, but let's not jump too far ahead just yet.

I'll be writing about many things which will undoubtedly annoy people and provoke a strong reaction. This isn't my intention. I'm merely sharing the opinion I've formed based on my reading and research.

But the greatest thing about the internet is that people can disagree with me and we can debate the issues.

So when we get into the substantive posts about homeopathy, psychics and other woo areas then feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree with me.

And, being a skeptic rather than cynic, it means if someone points me to new information then I may even be forced to change my mind.

Now there's a challenge!