How much do you tell the kids?

With a couple of young kids I've found myself becoming increasingly conflicted about just how 'truthy' I am with regards to those little white lies most parents see as normal.

I'm thinking of things like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and, yes, even God.

Every parent likes to think of their progeny as being intelligent and I'm no different. And with that comes the respect I have and my desire to be always honest with them and let them make their own decisions.

But it's hard. Hard because my innocent babies think the idea of Santa Claus giving them presents for being good is wonderous. And the pain of losing a teeth is overcome by the satisfaction and excitement of knowing that a coin awaits the next morning.

So what exactly should we tell our kids and what shouldn't we?

The most common way I've found of not dealing with this is deflecting the question back to the child in question.

"Does Santa exist, daddy?"

"Hmm. What do you think?"

But I can tell this is only going to get me so far. My eldest is just too inquisitive to let it stand. And they're both able to use my iMac to use the internet and I suspect it's only a matter of time before they try and find a cool Santa website and stumble on the truth.

(For what it's worth all proper parental controls are on to ensure they can't get to dodgy websites but I suspect belief in a jolly fat man with a white beard and sack of presents isn't filtered by this.)

So what do I say when my "Hmm. What do you think" is finally batted back to me with "It's a yes or no question, daddy. Does Santa exist?"

I suspect my skepticism will win through and I'll just confess. Probably out of earshot of the younger one so he can find out the truth for himself.

But is the right way to deal with it? Should I have told them the truth as soon as they understood the concept of the Tooth Fairy?

Or is little while lies to our kids acceptable? I'd be interested to hear from others what they would do, or have done, in similar circumstances.

Atheist bus campaign

I've written in the past how my particular brand of skepticism includes atheism.

I see religion as no different to any other topic - provide me with the evidence and I'll reconsider my stance.

And so on to the news. You may have already read about the decision by NZ Bus to deny the Atheist Bus Campaign advertising space on their buses.

Now to some extent I believe they are entitle to accept and reject adverts as they see fit. But frankly I just wish NZ Bus would grow a spine.

Company spokesperson Siobhan O'Donovan said a number of people found the potential advert ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life") 'distasteful or distressing'.

This just winds me up no end.

I see, read and hear things every single day of my life I find distasteful and distressing (I listen to Newstalk ZB so it's not hard). But I have the option to ignore it if I so choose.

The thing I don't understand is why that simple message is so controversial. It's not like the giant billboard of the planes flying into the Twin Towers with John Lennon's famed 'Imagine no religion' lyric which was designed to be deliberately provocative.

The only conclusion I can draw is these people's faith is on such shoddy grounds that even suggesting to them there might be no god is enough to turn them to the dark side.

Frankly I feel sorry for people who found this distressing. If someone was to put up a sign on a bus saying "Atheists are probably going to hell" then I wouldn't be distressed. I'd probably laugh.

In the meantime those things which I (and many people I know) find truly distasteful and distressing - poverty, child abuse, racism, sexism - go unaddressed.

Hey, here's a thought. Maybe NZ Bus could have taken the multiple thousands the atheists were offering to pay and given their bus drivers a raise. Might have helped with the whole poverty thing.

Pyschic schmychic

What do you do when friends pay money to see a 'psychic'? Do you spend time trying to convince them otherwise or do you just accept it and try and explain some of the hits afterwards?

I had often thought about this in the past and had always come down on the side of the former. Then I actually got some friends who paid money to see one and now I'm in the latter.

In fact, I'm now almost past the latter to the stage where I'm not even going to try and explain it because it turns out it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks.

And it's not like these people are unintelligent - they're not. These are clever people with good jobs, but seem willing to believe that someone who can make some educated guesses about them is able to see the future or talk to dead people.

The thing that got me (and led to a fair proportion of time speaking about it) was the disclaimer the 'psychic' gave up front - to paraphrase, 'this reading is accurate for today but you may make decisions in the future which will alter this and threfore you cannot come back to me and say this didn't come true'.

To an open-minded person I would have thought this would have raised a massive warning flag - and I like to think my friends are pretty open-minded. But no, this was accepted without question.

This so-called psychic just gave themselves the biggest out in the world and yet neither of my friends even considered this as a bad thing.

And then we got onto the hits - those things which were apparently so accurate that only someone who had special abilities would be able to know them. And yes, some good guesses were apparently made - but nothing beyond the bounds of some decent cold reading and a little research.

So I moved on and asked about things that didn't make sense. One of my friends said the 'psychic' had mentioned a name which didn't mean anything. I thought this would surely raise the alarm bells.

Nope, how wrong could I be. This just meant the person might not have come into their lives at this point, or maybe it was a reference to a family member they weren't aware of. Just great.

So, with tail firmly between my legs, I gave it one last shot. Both still have tapes of their visit to the 'psychic'.

I asked them to listen to the tape with a piece of paper in their hands and to mark all the things that were accurate and could apply only to them, things which were accurate which could apply to lots of other people and things which were inaccurate.

I'm figuring it's never going to be done.

So what do you do if a friend tells you they're going to see a 'psychic'? As much as it grates and goes against everything I stand for, in the future (at least with these friends) I might just bite my tongue.

It's TAM Australia, baby!

Apologies for the lack of updates recently. Rest assured my skeptical brain has been working while the rest of me has been slightly worse than useless.

I'll be back with more regular updates now Real Life (TM) has once again deigned to allow me some spare time.

And what better way to celebrate my impending return than with the announcement of TAM (The Amazing Meeting) Australia?

The Amazing Meeting has been held since 2003 and has become the premier meeting for skeptics worldwide. Unfortunately for those of us outwith the United States it can be very expensive to attend.

Earlier this year the first international TAM took place in London and it was widely acclaimed.

And so hot off the back of that was the announcement that Australia will become a focal point for skeptics all around the world from 26-28th November next year.

It's a major coup for the Australian Skeptics and the list of skeptical attendees is already looking impressive.

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe cast (Dr Steve Novella, Bob Novella, Jay Novella, Evan Bernstein and Rebecca Watson) had already announced they would travel to Australia next year but this will now coincide with TAM Australia.

And if that isn't exciting enough, Skeptoid's Brian Dunning and skeptical podcaster and singer George Hrab will also be making the long trip.

Oh, and a certain diminutive magician widely loved by the entire skeptical community has also said he intends to be in Sydney.

One of the greatest things about the skeptical community is how in touch the 'leaders' are with the base. I've exchanged e-mails, Facebook messages and Tweets with the biggest names and it's amazing (no pun intended) to be able to do that.

And the highlight had to be an e-mail from the man himself, James Randi. I sent him some birthday wishes last year and I was stunned to receive a message back from him.

It was short, amusing and has become my most treasured e-mail. I'll be hoping Randi has fully recovered from his recent health issues so I may shake his hand next November.

Congratulations Australian Skeptics and I can't wait to meet everyone next year.

I'll be looking for cheap tickets to Sydney every day from now on!

Skepticism can be fun

Skepticism can sometimes be a bit of a dry topic.

Good skeptical blog posts about efficacy of natural products may necessarily be hundreds (or thousands) of words long and include multiple references.

Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

But it doesn't always have to be that way. Sometimes less can say more.

And just recently I discovered a blog which does that brilliantly.

The guy's name is Crispian Jago and his blog has given me a huge number of laughs over the last few weeks.

His satire of South Park (called 'Skeptic Park' of course) is just perfect (part one, part two) and the time and effort he must have put into his Simpsons Skeptic video makes me feel way too lazy.

And I've already linked to his video showing how nonsensical homeopathy is by using his own urine as an example.

But the one which gave me the biggest laugh was his video 'The Benny Hinn Show':

Isn't it amazing how a 79 second video can entertain but also make a serious point at the same time?

I don't want to give you the wrong impression about Science, Reason and Critical Thinking because it also has some interesting, well written posts which aren't focussed on humour and there are some great videos from The Amazing Meeting in London.

So the best thing to do it head over there and subscribe to his RSS feed. I promise you won't be disappointed.

TVNZ's psychic step too far

I'll wait with baited breath for the accusation of being 'closed-minded' and the pearl of wisdom that 'science can't explain everything' because those are the two things I read and hear most when I write or speak about psychics.

But sometimes it's worth hearing that rhetoric because the story is much more important, and that's the case today.

I imagine many of you are familiar with the disappearance of west Auckland todder Aisling Symes and the police search to find the two year old.

Stories like this really tug on my heart strings, particularly with two young-ish kids of my own.

I can only imagine the pain the parents are going through at the present time, particularly their desperation to hear anything which could help re-unite them with their baby.

But even knowing that the decision of TVNZ to put self-proclaimed 'metaphysical researcher' (ie psychic, medium) Deb Webber in contact with her parents is beyond the pale, in my opinion.

Media columnist John Drinnan wrote about the story eloquently in the NZ Herald this morning, so I recommend jumping over there and reading his words.

But the only thing I don't agree with Drinnan on is his characterisation of TVNZ's role as unsettling. I'd go way beyond that. It's utterly disgraceful.

Psychics, in my opinion, fall into two categories - those who know they aren't psychic and are deliberately using hot and cold reading techniques and those who seriously believe they have the ability to talk with dead people but are just good cold readers and intuitive.

I have no reason to doubt Webber doesn't seriously believe she has the gift of talking to the spirits.

But that doesn't mean she is and it certainly doesn't mean TVNZ should be facilitating any kind of meeting with parents who will be struggling to deal with the situation they find themselves in.

What makes it worse is TVNZ have a relationship with Webber because of her part in Sensing Murder, a show which to my knowledge - and of course I'll amend this should someone provide evidence to the contrary - has never resulted in the solving of an unsolved case.

The state broadcaster then used the knowledge they had filmed Webber and she had 'some information' on the case to ask "how seriously are police likely to take that information" at a media conference.

Unfortunately Drinnan's piece doesn't say what the police response to that inappropriate question was.

Is it too much to hope the police aren't going to waste precious resources on what is likely to be nothing more than an educated guess based on the history of these types of disappearances?

The last thing this devastated family need to hear is the words of a person who has been caught talking with the spirits of dead people who didn't exist.

Unfortunately I can't bring you Eating Media Lunch's deliciously satirical take on Webber and her ability to speak with non-existant spirits because the Sensing Bullshit segment has been removed from YouTube due to "use violation".

In my opinion the search for young Aisling should be left to the professionals and not because the spirits are telling me so.

Common decency is.

Here are some links if you want to read some more about psychics and the Sensing Murder television show:

Skepdic on psychics
CSI's story on 'psychic' John Edward
Skeptico's psychic debunking
Sensing Bullshit
Sensing Murder

Auckland Skeptics in the Pub

Ever since I became aware I was a 'skeptic' I had struggled to find any kind of skeptical community to feel a part of.

That changed when I discovered podcasts like The Skeptics Guide to the Universe and even more so when I started using twitter regularly.

In fact, I conversed more with skeptics in Australia than I did with any in Auckland or even New Zealand.

But then I 'met' unifex on twitter. He is the organiser of Christchurch Skeptics in the Pub (SitP), webmaster of skepticsinthepub.net.nz and he offered some of his meetup.com credits to allow us to start Auckland SitP.

I set up the first meeting expecting 20 or so skeptics to crawl out of the Auckland woodwork but on the 10th September around 50 turned up at the Horse and Trap for the inaugral meeting.

Our numbers were definitely boosted by the attendance of special guest Kylie Sturgess, an Australian skeptic and a member of the Skeptic Zone podcast team.

She shared some of her experiences, recorded a conversation with a group of us to form part of the podcast (which you can download in mp3 format here) and even had time for some video shooting:



The meeting was a little disorganised, partly because no-one had any idea what was expected from the meeting, but despite that it was successful and plenty of ideas were shared for the next meeting.

And so this Thursday at 7.00pm another group of skeptics will gather at the Horse and Trap to listen to Matthew Dentith give a talk about conspiracy theories, have a beer and some snacks and do some networking.

If you're in the area feel free to drop in and check it out, and ideally join the group online so you can keep in touch with what's happening and help us build up our Auckland group.

Of course, if you're in Wellington or Christchurch then feel free to join their groups and head along to their meetings instead.

I promise you won't regret it.