Back to Skeptic Summary
Skeptic Summary #134
By The Staff
Posted on: 3/17/2007
Migraines, illusions, Stark, associations, venoms and more!
Week ending March 17, 2007 (Vol 4, #11)
Welcome to the Skeptic Summary, a quick week-in-review guide to the Skeptic Friends Network and the rest of the skeptical world.
Myths about migraines - They can be a pain in the neck.Kil’s Evil Pick:
Really creepy illusions - They may be more nauseating than creepy, though.
Thank Stark - Everyone hold up your glasses of baby’s blood to toast the first non-theistic Congressman in the US.
The Implicit Association TestNew Article This Week:
It is well known that people don’t always “speak their minds,” and it is suspected that people don’t always “know their minds.” Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology.So, you don’t think you have any biases? Enjoy…
This web site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods. This new method is called the Implicit Association Test, or IAT for short.
Evolving a Venom or Two - Please do pass the Tabasco, so long as it isn’t neurotoxic.Chat Highlights:
Sunday: Distinguished guest Robert Lancaster (Stop Sylvia Browne) makes an unannounced visit; Randi on Larry King Live; Robert Lancaster on Penn Radio; John Edward believers; flame wars; religious trinkets; What is TAM? (Read something about it here.) Also: paranoia about American Big Brother (no, not the TV-show: the Government); sci-fi books and authors; Chris Angel stunts; home-made quiz test by Hawks.New Members This Week:
Wednesday: A new record was set as this past week’s chat was the longest Wendesday chat in SFN history ever since statistics were maintained. Most talk centered around politics and certain heated forum topics. But much else was discussed, such as Representative Stark. Also, is debating the religious a waste of time, or is it just plain fun? Then migraines, alcohol to relieve the pain from them and AA to help with the alcohol. Both probably don’t work, but at least one is worth a try. Talk of children lead into forms of birth control, specifically vasectomies and the pill, as well as their side effects. As the night became late, chat switched over to art, art theory, ducks, and then of course, duck puns.
Come chat with us.
(Not a member? Become one today!)
Elsewhere in the World:
Bad ScienceBook of the Week:
The Skeptic’s Dictionary Newsletter 76
What’s New by Bob Park
Got some skeptic news items? Send them to us, and we’ll think about adding them.
Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, by Wendy M. Williams (author) and Stephen J. Ceci (editor).
“Why aren’t more women pursuing careers in science, engineering, and math? Is the lack of women in these fields a consequence of societal discouragements, innate differences in ability between the sexes, or differences in aspirations? These questions always spark a host of other questions — and a multiplicity of answers — all of which have important implications for gender equality and for retaining the nation’s competitiveness in the technological marketplace. The most reliable and current knowledge about women's participation in science is presented in this collection of fifteen essays written by top researchers on gender differences in ability. The essayists were chosen to reflect the diversity and complexity of views on the topic, about which knowledge has been accumulating and evolving for decades. The editors provide an introduction that defines the key issues and embeds them in historical context and a conclusion that synthesizes and integrates the disparate views. Written accessibly to appeal to students and non-specialists as well as psychologists and other social scientists, the contributors reframe this key controversy and challenge readers’ emotional and political biases through solid empirical science. Taken together, the introduction, essays, and conclusion make a convincing case that sex differences are neither as unambiguous as earlier researchers suggested nor as insubstantial as some current critics claim. Sex differences in career choices are definitely not inevitable, as the past thirty years have documented both a sea change in the gender makeup of various fields and fluctuations in ability-score differences between the sexes. However, as the essays make clear, such changes leave open the possibility of cultural and biological bases for today's sex differences in science, engineering, and math participation.”
— Book Description
This Week’s Most-Viewed Pages:
- Party, party, party! (885 views)
- Thank Stark (441 views)
- You may be a fundamentalist atheist if… (354 views)
- Dragon (323 views)
- Religion versus vaccines — sound familiar? (280 views)
- Krispy Kreme’s whole wheat donut of death (268 views)
- Olympic myth? (252 views)
- Owl on the dollar bill… (222 views)
- Global warming: the cold, hard facts? (195 views)
- Casino sites… (158 views)
There were 5,507 daily visitors this week.
- Cold Reading (72 views)
- Miracle Thaw — The Bogus Miracle (67 views)
- TAM4 (47 views)
- Evidence Cited as Hard Proof of the Existence of Satanic Cults (39 views)
- Kent Hovind is a Big Phony! (37 views)
- Miracle Thaw Tray (37 views)
- Skeptic Summary #133 (37 views)
- The Bible Answer Man (32 views)
- The Bible’s Bad Fruits (31 views)
- Skeptic Summary #39 (30 views)
More issues of the Skeptic Summary can be found in our archive.
The Skeptic Summary is produced by the staff of the Skeptic Friends Network, copyright 2007, all rights reserved.
Read or Add Comments about the Skeptic Summary