In a recent commentary for the Guardian, skeptic Susan Blackmore shared her thoughts on the death of LSD researcher Albert Hofmann. Readers may be surprised by some of what she wrote:

I am grateful, too, that it was Albert Hoffman who discovered LSD. And this is one of the most curious facts about this most curious drug. Hoffman had already had mystical experiences long before he took LSD, and was therefore well placed to appreciate the deeper significance of its mind-altering effects. There are very few chemists of whom that could be said.

Robert McLuhan has already posted his own thoughts at Paranormalia in his entry "Trip Down Memory Lane":

I wonder what she means by 'deeper significance'. It's always interested me that Blackmore combines an interest in Buddhism - she meditates and follows the practice of mindfulness - with an aggressively materialist view of consciousness that owes more to Richard Dawkins than Stanislaf Grof. As I understand it she belongs naturally to the school of thought that sees in the neurological correlate, that is the fact of altered brain chemistry engendering transcendent experiences, the 'final nail in the coffin of religion' - in fact I seem to remember coming across that dread cliché somewhere in her writings recently.

I think what Blackmore is referring to is not so much the ontological status of mystical experiences though, but more the fact that such experiences do have practical value as well - even if you want to define it as psychological rather than spiritual. So, while Blackmore appears to follow the reductionist line, she also practices Zen - but for her the 'illusion of self' refers to the personality arising out of physical neurons, not to some transcendent quality of the material universe. Other identities from the skeptical/materialist school of thought have been similarly open, such as Sam Harris, who professes and interest in 'rational mysticism'. Coincidentally, I'm currently reading John Horgan's excellent book Rational Mysticism (Amazon US and UK), and he devotes plenty of ink to the thoughts of Susan Blackmore:

Blackmore has had flashes of the mystical self-transcendence referred to in Zen as kensho. In fact, she includes her out-of-body experience back at Oxford among them. She views that experience as a hallucination, but a profoundly meaningful one. She has taken to heart the lesson imparted to her toward the end of her journey, that no matter how much we learn and grow, there is "always something more". As a result of that lesson, she views mystical experiences not as ends in themselves but as way stations on a never-ending journey.

Horgan's book is a great place to start in learning more about the apparent oxymoron that is 'rational mysticism'. I'll try and reference a bit more over the coming weeks.

If you fake magic, do you believe in real magic? Skeptic and paranormal researcher Dr Richard Wiseman has surveyed over 400 performers of stage magic to see what their opinion is of the paranormal, and written about the results in an interesting article for Skepchick (with more details on his own website).

Magicians make their living by performing the impossible. Night after night they employ sophisticated sleight of hand and technological wizardry to make objects vanish into thin air, read minds, and generally defy the laws of physics. So, when it comes to the paranormal, you might expect them to be somewhat skeptical. Even a brief glance at the history books would confirm such expectations, with several well known magicians taking time out from their busy schedules to pour cold water on psychic claims.

Dr Wiseman is playing to his audience somewhat here, as such a "brief glance at the history books" could perhaps give you completely the opposite impression - see George Hansen's article "Magicians Who Endorsed Psychic Phenomena" for details.

The poll ended up showing that around 1 in 4 magicians believe paranormal phenomena may exist (and much the same number even said they had experienced paranormal phenomena themselves). The only surprising thing about this number really is that it is much lower than previous surveys have suggested. One might argue that this decrease is only natural in light of the 'hipness' of magicians (and skeptics) Penn and Teller, Randi etc at this point in time. (It would also be good to see a list of the sources employed by Dr Wiseman, to check for possible biases either way - he says only that "the link to the online survey was placed on various magic-related sites and discussion groups".)

I did have to laugh though when I read this rather ironic short quote:

Of course, it is always possible that the answers given by some performers do not reflect their genuine beliefs and experiences (after all, this is a group that deceive for a living!)

Now, I'm assuming that Dr Wiseman here is offering a possible 'out' as to whether the performers really did have these paranormal "experiences". But Richard Wiseman is himself a magician, therefore...

Alan Boyle has posted a review/commentary of the Intelligent Design movie Expelled on his 'Cosmic Log'. Alan's always posting great stuff over there, and this is another example of that - but I thought I'd give it a mention here as it served (passively) as a bit of a fulcrum to my reading this week.

Firstly, Alan talked to evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll about the movie, and coincidentally I had just finished reading Steve Talbott's Antimatters article "Can the New Science of Evo–Devo Explain the Form of Organisms?". The article references Carroll as an authority on new developments in evolutionary theory, in discussing the 'design' aspects of living creatures and whether orthodox science really does explain how 'form' imposes itself upon physical creations.

When evolutionary biologists hear someone express wonder over the mammalian eye or peacock’s feathers, and when this wonder shades into incredulity about the usual sort of explanation for such things, all too often the biologists’ immediate assumption is that they’re up against an antagonist who doesn’t believe the eye or feather can be understood scientifically and who therefore wants to invoke some extra-scientific, and perhaps miraculous, explana-tion. And in fact some of the critics of evolution want to do exactly this.

More promisingly, we can step out of that fractious dispute and view the battlefield from a new level, where it becomes possible to grant the legitimate concerns of both sides. The scientist is absolutely justified in demanding unexceptioned respect for lawful, normal physical and biological process. Any attempt to introduce violations of this process leads immediately to nonsense.

But at the same time the incredulity the critic feels when contemplating the wonders of biological form is fully and emphatically justified. We should look at the eye and feather with disbelief in the usual manner of explanation. This, however, is not because we need miracles or violations of physical law. No, what we are disconcerted about is the claim that form has been explained by a description of processes from which considerations of form have been excluded as far as possible. Our unease is with the incommensurability between the explanation and what it is supposed to explain. The incommensurability, as I’ve tried to show above, results from the attempt to explain form by reference to mechanisms assumed to be both independent of form and the causes of it — when in fact we can make sense of the so-called “mechanisms” only by reference to the form we are supposedly explaining.

Secondly, another of the key points in Alan's article - disputing the portrayal in Expelled of a link between evolutionary thinking and Nazism/fascism - was also discussed in another article I read this week, "The Atheist Delusion" by John Gray (which I linked to yesterday). Gray took the 'new Atheists' to task for ignoring obvious historical instances of atheism being at the centre of evil deeds, and made some good points.

I found both these articles (and Alan's as well) to be balanced, insightful and thought-provoking, but also critical at appropriate times. In short, intelligent articles well worth reading and discussing.

With the controversial topic du jour being the 'battle' between religion and atheism, here's a wonderful resource for educating yourself a little, in order to help elevate this important debate beyond a mere caricature: the Investigating Atheism website. The project has been put together by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford, with a goal of aiming to give "a fully independent, but informed statement about this important subject."

The current polarised nature of the 'new atheism' debate often discourages serious discussion of the very issues that the 'new atheists' have brought so forcibly to the attention of the public. Behind some of their more vociferous assertions, there are complex debates going on, and here we will seek to understand how and why these debates have arisen, and what is at stake.

This website is a great resource for getting more background on the history and philosophical arguments underpinning atheism, in its various forms. There are also contributed articles commenting on the divide between atheism and religion, from various authors including Daniel Dennett, Rupert Sheldrake and Steven Weinberg. Perhaps the most interesting I found was John Gray's "The Atheist Delusion", which takes pretty much everyone involved in the debate to task for oversimplifying their arguments (probably why I enjoyed it so much).

Readers in the UK might be interested in a very affordable presentation this weekend (Saturday, 19th of April), featuring an all-star 'skeptical' line-up , including James 'The Amazing' Randi:

The Skeptic magazine and Skeptics in the Pub presents: A rare opportunity to share an evening with James Randi and his associates in an evening of discussion about science, pseudoscience, scepticism and the paranormal.

Scheduled speakers:

• Prof. Richard Wiseman; Psychologist, University of Hertfordshire.

• Prof. Chris French; Psychologist, APRU, Goldsmiths, University of London.
• Dr Simon Singh; author, journalist and TV producer.
• Dr Ben Goldacre; award winning writer, broadcaster, and medical doctor.
• Dr Susan Blackmore; freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster.
• James Randi; sceptic and magician.

Tickets cost £11 (standard), £5.50 (concessions: students & OAPs).

Hard to beat that price for a very good line-up of speakers. Worth getting along to for a skeptical perspective.

A space-time vortex has been created, with news that Richard Dawkins will guest-star as himself in an episode of the new Dr Who series. The revelation was made in The Independent, in an exclusive interview with writer/producer Russell T. Davies:

"People were falling at his feet," says Davies, creator of the BBC's flagship show. "We've had Kylie Minogue on that set, but it was Dawkins people were worshipping."

As writer and executive producer of Doctor Who, Davies often plays with religious imagery (from a cross-shaped space station to robot angels with halos), but he's a fervent believer in Dawkins. "He has brought atheism proudly out of the closet!"

The afore-mentioned vortex comes into play because of the fact that Richard Dawkins is married to actress Lalla Ward, who played Romana in the (halycon) Tom Baker days. His good friend, the late Douglas Adams, also wrote for the program for a short time. (Points go to this Slashdot commenter for some funny lines).

If the Big D on TV isn't enough for you, there's also news of a pilot for a new series titled "Skeptologists" (ugh, ugly name!). This reality TV show brings together an all-star 'Skeptic' line-up (Michael Shermer, Steven Novella, 'Bad Astronomer' Phil Plait, and others) to debunk the woo-woo and bring clear thinking rationalism to the desert of supernatural bunkum that is modern TV. Or something like that. So, be happy, your intellectual salvation is at hand. If this gets picked up, I expect to see none of you here by this time next year...

I noted last year that George Hansen had provided a wonderful resource by uploading Issues 1 to 5 of Zetetic Scholar, available to all as free PDF downloads. I'm happy to report that numbers 6 through 8 have been added to the collection.

Zetetic Scholar (ZS) was edited by Marcello Truzzi, who co-founded CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, now known as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). Truzzi resigned from CSICOP after it became apparent that other members didn’t want a scientific organization, but rather an advocacy group. Truzzi established ZS to foster scholarly debate and dialogue between critics and proponents of the paranormal.

ZS issues 6-8 include dialogues on remote viewing, parapsychology, and UFOs. Some of the contributors include: Robert Jahn, Paul Feyerabend, Ray Hyman, John Beloff, I. J. Good, Charles Tart, Antony Flew, Henry Bauer, David Hoy, Jerome Clark, Robert Morris, Persi Diaconis, J. Allen Hynek, John Keel, and Bruce Maccabee.

Some wonderful reading in the new issues, make sure you download and check out what a dialogue between skeptics and 'fringe' scientists should look like.

In his newsletter posting addressing my article "The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge", James Randi incorrectly attributes a number of my own comments to paranormal investigator Loyd Auerbach (see "The Grubbies Attack"). I informed the JREF of this error (and others), and there was a partial correction added to the beginning of Randi's post - however, it remained incorrect. I later engaged Randi in a personal email conversation about this, and while I respect the privacy of personal emails, I do feel compelled to point out that Randi acknowledged that *he knows* it wasn't Auerbach making those comments. The reason for 'replying' to Auerbach was entirely a personal one by Randi (which will remain private, as requested by Randi - however, I feel it would not be fair on Loyd Auerbach to keep Randi's acknowledgement of his non-involvement private).

This point is an important one, because many of Randi's supporters acknowledge that he can be ascerbic, but at least he tells the truth. The point is, simply, that he doesn't. He actually uses many techniques which might be considered a 'con' - not actually that surprising, as he is a magician by trade. Some are subtle rhetorical devices (such as calling my article "a tirade" numerous times), other times it is quite simply lying so openly that people don't suspect it. See if you can pick out the sleight of hand in the following... ... Read More »

While sick last week I missed quite a show, with a a head-on confrontation between atheist headliners Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, and the producers of the pro-Intelligent Design film Expelled. What made the whole story newsworthy, really, was that P.Z. Myers - of the popular Pharyngula blog - was 'expelled' from seeing an early preview screening of the film by the producers while literally lining up for a ticket (public release is scheduled for April 18). Well, that wasn't really the newsworthy bit - it got more interesting when they kicked out Myers but completely missed the fact that also lining up for a ticket with Myers was Richard Dawkins...who simply walked in and viewed the film (sans P.Z. Myers):

...have you ever heard of a sabot? It's a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn't the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.

I'm a kind of sabot right now.

They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was...

Richard Dawkins.

He's in the theater right now, watching their movie. Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?

Subsequently, Richard Dawkins has posted his review of the film (and the Myers expelling) on his website, titled "Lying for Jesus?" (as has P.Z. Myers' daughter, Skatje). In turn, the producers of the movie had put their own twist on the controversy. And lastly, Dawkins and Myers sat down for a video chat about the entire fiasco. Mention of the story has even made the big newspapers, although it's hard to tell whether the producers of the movie would see that as a bad or good development (as the old adage goes, "there's no such thing as bad publicity").

Unfortunately, the affair continues bring the dialogue about Darwinian evolution down to the level of monkeys throwing crap at each other across the room (a graphic analogy, but probably apt for the subject matter!). It's hard to blame anyone for it, it's just simply the way it is with competing ideologies. No doubt the Expelled producers have used dubious tactics when it comes to interviewing Dawkins et al, but then it's hard to be sympathetic when Rupert Sheldrake gives this account of Dawkins' own tactics when filming. The reviews of Expelled certainly cast it as a Creationist propaganda film (admittedly, the reviews are by the 'enemies' of the film), and that disturbs me because I have no wish to support that particular belief. On the other hand, the over-arching theme of the film (of the 'expelling' of heretics in science) is one that interests me greatly. And even though Dawkins praises P.Z. Myers' "caustic wit", most times I just find his blog postings to be obnoxious, obvious rants about religious nutters. Really, it's just a continuation of polarisation...and as mentioned above, the controversy probably plays more into the hands of the film-makers, despite the best intents of atheist bloggers.

Which leads me to saying, it would be nice to see more subtlety to this debate rather than Darwinians versus Creationists. I find some apostate views on evolution rather fascinating (though I hardly have the background to speak authoritatively about the topic) - things like Francis Crick's version of Intelligent Design/panspermia (happily, mentioned by Richard Dawkins in "Lying for Jesus?"), odd pieces of supporting evidence for a hint of neo-Lamarckism, and Rupert Sheldrake's own ideas of 'morphic resonance', and the 'conscious evolution' speculated on by people like Charles Muses (I'm particularly interested at the moment in the thought that consciousness may be an intrinsic, perhaps essential, part of the cosmos). I'm certainly not claiming that any of these non-Darwinian theories are correct, but I do enjoy contemplating possibilities (making me, of course, a whacko non-critically thinking grubby!)...

For further updates on this story (from the evolutionist standpoint), keep an eye on the "Expelled Exposed" website.

Some good fun skeptical thinking on "paranormal videos" can be enjoyed via Captain Disillusion's YouTube channel:

In a world where the content of digital images and videos can no longer be taken at face value, an unlikely hero fights for the acceptance of truth.

Captain Disillusion guides children of all ages through the maze of visual fakery to the open spaces of reality and peace of mind.

Captain D has some video-manipulating skills himself, so he offers some good laughs while debunking superficial media favourites, such as the "Bigfoot on Mars" and the "Gas Station Ghost" (the latter almost making me snort my coffee through my nose). In the words of our brave superhero, "Love with your heart, use your head for everything else." (h/t Post Human Blues)