Writing research papers for fun?

One thing I have found a lust for since realizing I was a Skeptic is researching. It was like a light bulb turned on above my head and woo was suddenly filling my brain. If acupuncture is bunk, than what else is? I suddenly understood that my husband wasn't a naysayer or a cynic, he simply wanted to know the truth and see the evidence for what it was.

I've since decided I want to know the truth, too. Before when I would read an article it was simply, "hmm interesting article". Now, however, one sentence will give me reason to say "wait a minute?" If this one thing is bogus, than the rest of the article must come under question as well.

I eased into it, adding new blogs to my reader, listening to a few podcasts. Gradually I stepped up into blogging a bit on my own. Now I'm writing research papers for fun. Anytime I hear a person comment on something that could be woo I get excited to look into it. I want to debunk it all! Wrong attitude? I know.

Though the thrill of discovering that something is false is undeniable we need to be objective. Like James Randi said at TAM, we need to go into things investigating, not specifically to debunk. Who knows it could be true, and that is awesome too! So I am going full force into research. Writing papers for fun that I dreaded in school. It's hard though when you get too technical. The research you find is all hidden behind the abstract. I thirst for full text!

I did something I would never have done before, I emailed a specialist. I need to have things explained so that I don't go out there and debunk something I can't understand. Here's hoping they're able to help me.

I'm unbelievably excited to hear back from a doctor about biology. What happened to me? :) I don't know, but it's fun!

A more Skeptical world:one person at a time

I just stumbled into a conversation today at the park which reminded me again why the Skeptical movement is necessary. My wife was editing a hard copy of an entry I am working on, and a woman asked if she was helping with my homework. We explained that I actually write a blog which takes a science-based approach to looking into popular claims and myths.

This seemed to interest her, and she asked about why I did it, did I make money, how did I get my information? This were awesome questions actually. The only real answer I could come up with as far as motivation goes is that misinformation really bothers me. I firmly believe that it is harmful to the public at large when they believe things that aren't true. There is enough in the world that can in fact harm or help you, that it is distracting to be swayed into thinking that safe things are harmful or harmful things are safe. And that's why I do it I suppose.

We talked a bit more about some of the claims and it stumbled into the territory that can be quite dangerous:personal experience and anecdotes. I explained that there is a perception about vaccines being dangerous, and she said that she had a relative who had a kid with autism which started very shortly after getting vaccinated. This is a sad story, but is very familiar to those in the Skeptical community. I was not sure quite how to tread, so I explained the idea that the Autism generally does not make itself evident until around 18 - 36 months, which corresponds to some of the later vaccines. With 1 out of 110 people getting diagnosed, it is not at all surprising that on any given today a child will "suddenly" show signs following a vaccine. 40,000 people a year die in car accidents... there is a good chance that some of them had a vaccine within the weeks before. Or that they brushed their teeth. I also explained that it turns out that when you look at videos of kids even as young as 6 months, you can detect early signs of Autism, which don't become totally obvious until later. It is this fact that helped with some recent trials claiming harm from vaccines. I explained that the author of the original "study" linking MMR and Autism, Andrew Wakeful, recently had his medical license revoked in the UK due to his outrageously unethical practices in producing the study.

I was nearly overjoyed when she said she really wanted to read my article on vaccines and that she would show it to her relatives, as they were constantly searching for information. She wished so much, as do I, that they would just find the cause for Autism. If only.

She said that she frequently does wonder if claims are true or not, but has no idea where to start. I truly hope that my blog, and others like it, can serve as that connection between the claims and the science. She even bookmarked the site on her iPhone! That's all I could really ever ask for. I hope that I am writing in such a way that she, and others like her, feel I am doing a service and presenting the information accurately.


Information is power and the only way for people to become aware of it is for it to be written and talked about. This was one of the most positive Skeptical experiences I have had in quite a while.

First post!

My wife and I decided to start this blog to explore and talk about random ideas that come up in our lives as we try to live "Skeptically". For me, this means:

• discussing the process of writing for "What Does the Science Say?"
• podcasts that I am currently enjoying (or not)
• links the interesting news stories (standard blog fare...)
• Tips and thoughts from hosting a skeptical playgroup meetup for parents in the San Fernando Valley (and greater Los Angeles area)
• Anything else from the daily life of a Skeptic

In terms of the first, I am currently in the final stages of a response to a recent Huffington Post article on aspartame written by Joe Mercola. I had previously written about aspartame on my other blog and so had a lot of background information and knew that much of what was claimed in the article was simply untrue. Writing it has taken me the better part of two weeks. All told, It's probably taken me between 15 and 20 hours of research and writing. My wife has provided great assistance by reading my drafts and finding ridiculous grammar and phrasing errors. I certainly wonder if my favorite bloggers and writers have to go through all that... or do they just get it right the first time? A big aspect is in trying very hard to not fall into using logical fallacies (especially ad hominem attacks) to make my case. The science really has to do the speaking.

As I have a full time job and a young daughter, both of which keep me very busy, I have had to start employing what I have termed "5 am skepticism" (though I start at 6 am... so haven't gotten there yet). This was inspired by a great entry by Brian Dunning on Skepticblog, discussing how he manages to be so prolific in a similar situation.

I am working my way up to actually waking at 5 am, giving me an extra hour for writing and research. However, that would really require me to be good about getting to sleep before midnight, as I do need to get enough sleep to function properly at my day job. In theory I could work on my Skepticism at night after my daughter goes to sleep (around 8ish), but I am usually pretty spent from work and, I am ashamed to admit, frequently want to veg out a bit. I am working on that as well.

I hope to get the "article" (what do you call long-winded blog entries?) out by Monday.

Currently reading: "The Faith Healers" by James Randi. Expose into the world of religious "faith healers" and televangelists from the 70s and 80s.