Details
Category: Swift
Hits: 233119

Update!

For those who may need further evidence for my contention, the proof can be found at http://tinyurl.com/ye9d9lp -- where it is clearly seen that the “facilitator” is looking directly at the keyboard, while the subject is asleep! There can be no further doubt.  This FC claim is simply untrue, a farce, a lie – and the “facilitator” knows it! And no, this man is not going to write a book, but the "facilitator" is, and if this humbug is not stopped, she'll make a fortune doing so. Put a stop to this, someone!"

But who will see that the caretakers for this unfortunate man are corrected and made to answer for this situation?

Original article:

I'm enraged. Several perceptive persons have sent me to msnbc.com - where we can see Dr. Nancy Snyderman relating a story.  It's a heartrender, described thus by Dr. Snyderman:

A mother [in Belgium] says her son has emerged from what doctors thought was a vegetative state to say he was fully conscious for 23 years but could not respond because he was paralyzed.

No, that is not what the man said, Dr. Snyderman. That's what an incompetent layperson typed for him! I ask you to first go to http://tinyurl.com/y8lku48, and note the section of the video from 12 to 35 seconds, then come back here.

Details
Category: Swift
Hits: 9972

Nineteen days ago, we published a request for your suggestions on the future development of Swift, as well as a call for freelance writers and columnists. Lots of people requested writers' guidelines, and we got a handful of really excellent stories. Thank you to Sean Sturgeon, Matt Fiore, Penn Bullock, Naomi Baker, and Luke Doug Haines. (Send more!)

As a result of your suggestions, we'll operate a little differently from now on. The very first thing we'll do is disable or severely modify the Vote Up/Vote Down button in the "Comments" section.  That button has buried a great many worthwhile thoughts, and it'll be gone within the week. My apologies to those whose opinions have been stifled.

Details
Category: Swift
Hits: 18461

A rawtha angry letter by Rupert Sheldrake will appear in the next issue of Skeptic, in response to Chris French's ("reverential") interview of James Randi in the summer issue.

The letter has its points -- for example, when it accuses Randi of occasional grumpiness (It's true! He can be grumpy!) -- but the bulk of the thing is an attack upon Randi's character and qualifications.

Mostly, Sheldrake seems discomfited by a document passed out by Randi, Andrew Mayne, and Michael Shermer at The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, entitled "Communicating Skepticism To The Public." We have no copies of this document. Perhaps you can help us.

Details
Category: Swift
Hits: 10595

bridgefog.jpgScientific skepticism is the simple process by which provisional conclusions are reached through a systematic examination of evidence. The tools of science fill our workbench while emotions and spirituality are left still wrapped in cellophane under the table -- pretty, and seemingly pretty useless. As such, it would seem that the humanities would have little to offer the skeptical community. What can poetry tell us of Occam's razor? How can a song express the quadratic equation?

As I write this, I'm listening to "Glorious Dawn" by ColorPulse, also know as John Boswell. This viral piece features Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking "singing" about the wonder of science. I find the sound mesmerizing and listen to it often; your mileage may vary. But it illustrates an important point that I think the skeptical community misses at times. Music, art and poetry can and should inform our skepticism.

Details
Category: Swift
Hits: 17091
Editor's Note: Approximately 30% of the correspondence we receive at the JREF is woo. About 20% is friendly chit-chat, another 20% is well-wishing, and the rest is a mix of media requests, hate mail, and earnest questions about skepticism. This new column is concerned with the latter.

After reading enough of these questions, it occurred to us that some of them may be of general interest. Furthermore, since the answers to these questions are more a matter of opinion than of fact, they are probably most effectively addressed by Swift's readership at large. Many of these questions deserve a plurality of answers. Please consider supplying some.

If you'd like to contribute a question for "Ask The Skeptics'" next edition, please write to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the subject line "Ask The Skeptics." Some questions will be edited for brevity. All questions shall be published anonymously.

  1. Earn $50 for the JREF!
  2. Banner Test
  3. The Principle of The Thing
  4. More Magic Wands