There is no fundamental difference between the majority of so-called sceptics and the majority of crackpots. They are both victims of an ideology and both have yet to arrive at this fact, and there is absolutely nothing that will change their (your) minds.

The anti-vaccine crowd keeps going on about a Dr. Sherri Tenpenny (board certified osteopath, no less) whom they say “reveals the truth about Big Pharm and the dangers of vaccines”. I haven’t been able to find *any* critical analysis of what this person has written, although I have seen some of her content on youtube (easily refuted statistical maniuplation). She’s written several books on the subject and has a “four hour DVD that reveals all!”

But has anyone heard of her? No papers published on arxiv.org or in Nature or the Lancet for that matter.

And to keep this on subject, what’s the best site refuting the anti-vaxxers?

Thanks,
–sma

Keep up the good work

joel

Questioning science is not anti-science. Not even if the science is solid and repeatable and explainable and as beautiful as possible. Not even if it is the millionth time it has been asked. Not even if every PhD on the planet agrees it is true. Even screaming at the top of your lungs that all of our conclusions are wrong, is not necessarily anti-science. Questioning is always good, though perhaps, annoying.

Anti-science IS saying, “Shut up and stop questioning.” It is also unbelievably, arrogantly rude.

Every person on this planet is participating in this fantastic experiment called life. Their perspective might be limited, their logic might be faulty, but it is possible they still know some part of the truth we don’t. To be truly pro-science you must listen to find the truth wherever it comes from. Immaterial of whatever kind of non-sense surrounds it.

Remember, if enough people believe it, there is usually a good logical explanation there someplace.

I don’t want to come off like I’m discouraging good debate and disagreement. On the contrary. But a little respect for the “other” perspective wouldn’t hurt, you know. It might even encourage them to respect your perspective. Wouldn’t that be a nice change?

The tone of this blog is very condescending. I get so fed up with it on a regular basis I quit reading. I come back because I love astronomy and I love to “feel the love” for astronomy here. But too often it is about being this uber-skeptic. The irony here is that when “they” are skeptical about your conclusions it is anti-science. Not just skepticism.

Science doesn’t know everything. I hate to tell you that. But I have faith that it will, someday. No matter who shouts, “Everything is all wrong.” We’ll figure it out without ever shutting them up. And perhaps because we couldn’t.

I guess my point is that science doesn’t need you or me or anyone deciding what is science. It will do it all by itself. And approaching this with so much negativity is only going to hurt science. Please try some humility. I really love the love you have for astronomy. But your nastiness towards those with a different opinion is pushing my buttons.

It is silly to think that this one person who is asking you to change is going to make you change your blog for the positive. But it is sillier to think that if I don’t ask, that it will on its own. So there it is. Please tone down your attitude.

Thanks for that. I read you FAQ’s and it explained alot

Pete

Here’s another example of why your blog will grow (the great science writing is the main reason though). The other day you posted a clip from Louis CK that was hysterical. I sent that to about 20 friends (and not the YouTube clip link – your Bad Astronomy link from the post). Everybody thought it was funny, and about 3 wrote back saying “what is this “Bad Astronomy” site? Is it worth checking out?”. And I said “yes, absolutely”. Multiple that by the BA regulars and you’re building a group.

That issue is addressed in the FAQ on the site. The site is largely designed to fill a very particular rhetorical role: answering a believer who is offering only anecdotes or testimonials to support their nonsense. Often one finds these people just glaze over when you try to explain logical fallacies and scientific evidence. The anecdotes on the site give you some material to feed them that they might better understand.

And, of course, it is intended as a motivational tool for skeptics. These cases are what we are trying to prevent.

I wasn’t aware that Tai Chi promised to do anything other than aid concentration, agility and balance, which is all someone should be claiming for any martial art.

But then I’ve only ever read adverts for it in a ‘sport’ context, an ad posted in a spiritual healing rag would be a bit different I suppose.

I liked it a lot because it puts these things into an everyday, “how does this affect us” context. That said, some of the stories were only tangentially related to their topic. The read more links were useful, many led to news stories, or personal websites. There may have been some anecdotes in their but the good majority (and I spent about an hour or so clicking around) seemed to be based on solid and confirmed facts.

Maybe I will try to write a blog about Extrasolar Planets and stuff, the problem is that my english is not that good.

Any other opinions on that or am I in the minority here?

Pete

But you’re right, you need to find a niche. When my site was a “broad interest” site, you could hear the crickets echo. But when I focused on space news and opinion (including the ripping apart of thrill-seeker doomsayer theories), traffic started to flow. It also helps massively if you already write for a huge space blog — my writing for Fraser at the Universe Today meant my articles jumped ahead by a few years, I had a running start. In fact I’ll always be in debt of Mr Cain for the rare opportunity to be on the UT staff.

Then there’s SEO, if your site doesn’t know how to jive with Google, that is a major negative.

Also, use social bookmarking sites. Not by cheating (i.e. don’t post your own articles – gets ya banned that does!), but by participating. Make friends (there are a lot of very knowledgeable and wonderful people out there – they can teach you a lot), exchange links and be a good member of the Web 2.0 population. Eventually, people want to see what you’ve got to say.

Also, diversify. Whether that means writing for other blogs, news sites or real-world magazines. Most probably won’t hit the mark, but occasionally someone with a big site will notice and link to your blog, especially if you are working a niche. I’m doing a little radio show now for a station in Texas (WPRT Radio), and although it’s pretty humble at the moment, hopefully I’ll be able to provide a service that peeps can find on the web and (eventually) the airwaves.

Its all hard work, but if you enjoy writing about your favourite subject in the world, it shouldn’t be a struggle And if you’re good at it, you might be a hit.

Cheers, Ian

Or the gigawatt.

A porn skepticism site…

(slips back into nappy time)