This is important. Please take five minutes and read it through to the end.
Last Saturday, I blew it.
I wrote a blog entry which I meant to be focused on how we ascribe supernatural causes to statistical events, and how the words we use tend to wriggle into our brains and take on a reality they don’t deserve. The motivation for this was a newspaper article about a young women who suffered a horrific car accident, and despite her statistically remote chance of survival, she has been making a remarkable recovery. The words "miracle" and "luck" were used many times, and I wanted to talk about those words and how I think they get misused.
Somewhere down the line, though, for whatever reasons, my writing took on a snarky tone. I will give no excuse for it, except to say that it was stupid of me. It had several repercussions: it distracted people from what I was trying to say, lessening the impact of the actual content. It riled up people needlessly, as well, of course. But the dumbest part of all this was that somehow, I forgot that at the other end of that article was a real human being who was going through a personal version of hell that I can’t even imagine.
Sometimes you need a kick in the butt to see the obvious. That kick came when Shannon Malloy, the woman who had the accident, left a comment on my blog (and her friend Twyla also left several salient comments). And yes, I was skeptical as well, but through various means I have determined it was in fact Shannon who left the comment.
The sense of my own stupidity that hit me was palpable. It is so easy to be a keyboard commando, as they say, and write whatever you want and not think of the repercussions. But I have always tried to be above that, to be at the very least polite. It’s not always easy, of course, when dealing with the kind of stuff I do. And I’ve slipped a few times, sure, but never like this. I was really disappointed in myself.
I updated the blog entry, and issued an apology in the comments. But there are over 100 comments there, and mine got lost in the crowd. It deserved its own entry, so here it is.
Science, skepticism, and critical thinking are all about admitting when you’re wrong, and taking action to correct them.
I was able to track down Shannon’s mother and send her a note expressing my regrets over my own callousness. It turns out that she is a gracious and warm woman, and we resolved our issues in a friendly and I dare say upbeat manner. It’s ironic, but after feeling so miserable, I now feel just the opposite, knowing that there really are good people out there. Even better: today I talked to Shannon on the phone as well! We only talked for a few minutes, but it’s clear that she has a lot of gumption and strength. It is no exaggeration to say that she is an inspiration.
I see an onslaught of bad thinking, histrionic attacks on reality, personal insults (like you can’t imagine), and other assorted bile every day. It can be difficult. But seeing what Shannon and her friends and family have gone through, I can handle my own load better now. I think I’ve learned my lesson, and I’m stating so publicly.
And now, after all this, I want to do something positive for Shannon. Her mom told me that she has a vast amount of surgery left to go through, and it’s expensive. Very expensive, six figure expensive. Saturday’s blog post got over 100 comments, which means a lot of people read it, which means, I think, a lot are reading this.
So: got any spare cash? A donation fund has been set up in Shannon’s name at the Denver Wells Fargo bank to help her pay for medical bills. If you want to donate to it, send a check to Wells Fargo. Make it out to "Shannon Malloy Benefit Fund" and put the fund number in the memo field: 303 666 0508. The address is
Wells Fargo
7150 Leetsdale Dr.
Denver, CO
80224
But I can make it even easier. I have a PayPal account, and if you send money to that, I will collect it and send it to Wells Fargo myself. I will of course keep your info secret; I won’t disclose who sent how much. Since I am moving next week, and expect I’ll be busy, I’ll leave the button up on the top of this blog at least until next Wednesday, May 22. If donations are still rolling in, I’ll keep it up until after my move.
Here you go. Give.
Update (Sept 15 2007): Donation button removed.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I for one am proud of you for admitting error and seeking to rectify it through various means. I was quite disappointed with the original post, but opted to more or less ignore it as the reaming in the comments seemed to say it all. I’ll donate as soon as my Paypal funds transfer finishes (which will be before 5/22).
And for the record, I understood what you meant to say the first time around, but you picked a poor example. Nevertheless, I was glad to see this post and trust that you’ll apply the lessons learned from this experience. Bravo!
May 16th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
It’s nigh impossible not to make mistakes like this on the internet, and the more widely your page is read, the worse the embarrassment and/or the offense caused.
That’s not an excuse, but we do need to be reminded from time to time that everyone can and will read any personal comment. I know I’ve upset authors with cruel reviews. As far as this case goes- Shannon did not ask to be the center of a media blitz. She’s not a politician or a professional opinion writer or selling a product.
I’m of the opinion that Phil’s original article was more of a mistake in style than of substance. Style is hard, and it’s especially hard to get across any shades of subtlety over the internet. It may not be much of a consolation, but the intent behind the article was to analyze the press-coverage, and in no way to belittle the people involved.
I’m also painfully aware that grievous mistakes were made by us posters. Some of us really did go too far. I hope Shannon can forgive them- we all make mistakes, and some really poor mistakes were made.
I think this has been a ‘learning experience’ for us all and we all wish Shannon well.
May 16th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Oh, cheer up. You’re only human, and humans are imperfect. I think that’s something the religious and non-religious can agree upon.
We all make errors. I’m pretty sure a flippant comment of mine about Final Fantasy IV on an early Japanese RPG message board led to the 1994 Rwanda genocide.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Feeling the Abyss staring a hole into you is NO FUN at all.
May 16th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I have to say I was almost willing to stop reading this blog after the original entry, but as usual you have handled the situation with grace and style. Too often skeptics can come across as arrogant or callous, but this blog (and your book) have always seemed more down-to-earth and humble while at the same time not pulling punches about bad thinking. There’s a reason this blog is so popular, you’re GOOD at this.
PS. Once you get moved, I hope you have time to do another movie review. I love those. Spiderman 3 has some classic Bad Astronomy, it should be a fun one.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
I agree with the posts above: Good for you for going public with your apology. People often accuse scientists, particularly scientists in the ‘hard sciences’, of being arrogant and cold. You have shown yourself to be the opposite of that image. I’ll be sure and donate.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:09 am
Once in a while we drop the ball…. Well, we just have to pick it up again and continue the game.
Good comeback BA.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:25 am
A couple of years a go my brother was in a pretty bad accident which should have killed him or at least left him mentally impaired. After minor brain surgery followed by a month or so in a coma, he woke up with all of his faculties intact. People are still praising god about his recovery and testifying about the miracle. His response: Highly trained doctors and nurses saved his life with medical science. God didn’t have anything to do with it.
At the worst point during his coma, a priest came in and asked if he could pray over my brother. I explained that we were not really believers, but didn’t see any reason to forbid him from trying to help. He crossed to the bedside and began to pray. “In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit..” At this point my brother began coughing violently, disloging his tracheal tube and spraying spittle into the face of the priest. He calmly wipe his face, looked up at me and said, “I swear I didn’t cause that.” and finished his prayer. Seemed like a pretty cool guy.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Forgive my stupidity… but, if Shannon needs this surgery to recover, why it’s up to her family to pay? I can’t imagine such a thing happening where I live. Someone needs badly surgey, and it’s up to charity? Nobody else (State or some insurance company) is responsible? So if they can’t gather those 6-figure dollars, she’ll be left as she is now… and nobody will be held responsible? It sort of puzzles me. Charity, for Christ’s sake, as if she was asking money for a breast surgery! She NEEDS it… Can’t understand it. Can’t.
I hope that they gather all the money ASAP and she can recover to the full of her possibilites.
Oh, and Phil… it takes just a fool to spoil it big, but a gentleman to apologyze.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Where I come from there is a phrase “manners make the man”. I think it’s fair to say that in this case Phil has proved beyond all doubt that he has both the manners and proved himself the better man.
Respect where due!
May 17th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Rather than going back to the original blog, would it be in order to continue here as Christopher seems to have set a precedent.
Recap, strictly speaking a miracle was a sign or wonder where natural law was suspended. New birth or surviving an accident, not a miracle. A pen falling up to the ceiling in violation of the natural law of gravity - a miracle, albeit not a very useful one (note falling up, not sucked up or pulled up by magnatism).
There is a concept in the faith world, which I apologise for not mentioning, which allows both the sceptics and the faith people to be right at the same time. This concept is called “providence” (Not the town near Rhode Island). OK so medical science in the form of skilled medics saved a person, Shannon in this case. The survival had a low probability, but can happen. Bring in providence from the faith perspective and you get a gentle guidance of events, still with in natural law bringing about a fortuatous outcome. The sugeons just happened to be on duty that night or some factor just happened to be so, although non miraculous, the person survives, because providence meant that they were able to get the care from the trained medics who could use science to help out. God’s hand in the aftercare could have been there, without any miracles needed. When Christians pray, it should not be for miracles, but providential outcomes.
I have a good example of a providental outcome where a prayer was answered. One of our church members needed to hand in a dissitation, done on Word. Some how the file was not opening and he thought he would have to do every thing from scratch the night before it had to be submitted. He mentioned it at the Bible class and there were prayers that it could be fixed or he could remember everything. I had a more upto date copy of Word and got him to email it across, and I was able to do Open and Repair, recover his disitation, re-save it and email it back and confirm that the re shipped file was OK. He then went and printed it out. His prayer was answered, and I was the person who was used, this was some months after my system had got blatted and the engineer had given me that better copy of Word.
Not a single miracle involved, just pure providence
Science and Faith need not conflict, we just need to get our terminology right
PS Get Well Soon Shannon
May 17th, 2007 at 3:56 am
I don’t understand why you feel the need to apologise. Sure, Shannon Malloy has had a horrific accident, and is in the middle of an extremely long and painful rehabilitation. But that was not the point of the article. In fact, in her comment, Ms. Malloy re-iterated her misguided opinion that she has been the beneficiary of divine intervention. Your original statement that she is crediting a God for her survivial but not blamimg a God for her original accident is still as valid as it was when you first made it. Your point was clear when you wrote the first article, and is still as clear and as important, today. “She should have died. The doctors usually discover this injury during an autopsy.” As you said in the OP, she is simply ascribing supernatural reasons to her happening to fall in an extremely small statistical grouping.
So Shannon was insulted and hurt by what you wrote. So what? My teenaged son is insulted and hurt when I correct him, too. Does that mean I should allow him to think and do whatever the hell he wants? Of course not. Correcting mistaken and misguided thinking is what we do here in the skeptical blogosphere. It is a difficult and uncomfortable position, being the responsible parent, but that doesn’t prevent us from disciplining our children when they need it. Likewise, we should not shy away from pointing out credulous and uncritical thinking when we come across it.
Shannon Malloy, you need to get over your initial surprise and hurt over seeing your name discussed in the greater blogosphere, and try to read and comprehend the actual message in Phil’s words. It’s for your own good.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 am
Just remember The GIFT. The Greater Internet F***wad Theory. Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total F***wad.
NSFW:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
I have this happen to myself sometimes (often):P. It is hard to control. I find that the best way to stop it is to try and maintain complete neutrality in any statements I make, and to not refer to any other person by name. If I make a statement, it should be able to stand up on its own without an “I disagree!” attached to it. Obviously that wouldn’t work well for a blog format of posting, but it works for me:).
May 17th, 2007 at 4:23 am
But the thing with the concept of providence is that both sides can be “right” or to put it another way there is no conflict between the two sides.
With Providence, being the beneficiary of divine intervention does not require miracles, it can be the care given by the trained professionals mentioned and the accumulation of medical science that Phil mentioned. From the faith point you can ask what motivated each professional to go into that profession and what breaks they got to follow that course to the point their lives intersected Shannon’s. You can even investigate how they came to be on duty that day.
As a side point, we do usually not blame God for things, because of this thing called free will, which is another can of worms for another place and time.
The sceptic sees only probability and the skill of the surgeons, but with the faith world, providence does not contradict with that assessment, but uses it.
We do not have to fight here, just be careful with our terms, that is all.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Paul I agree (broke my own rule here:P), but it wasn’t Phil’s message that was in question. I completely agree with his message. It was his delivery and condescending tone of voice (errr writing). It came across in some ways as if he was picking on an individual person, which is not a good thing. Picking on an individual person will lead to resentment and an irrational of that individual’s actions, as it did here. Dissecting and attacking the concept, the core IDEA behind these cries of “miracle” is what needs to be done instead.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:32 am
*irrational defence of that individual’s actions.
These comments need an edit feature:(.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:52 am
The other expression that encompasses providence is “There but for the Grace of God…”
I hope this helps
May 17th, 2007 at 4:55 am
This is the first time I’ve ever left a comment on a blog, but I’ve read BA for years. I just wanted to say that I was very impressed with your apology, not only does it show a lot of class, but humanity as well. I did think the original post was harsh, but being able to admit when one has crossed the line is (sadly) a dying occurance in our society. While I don’t always agree with what I read, Phil, your grace, humor, intelligence, and love of life will always bring me back!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:00 am
Good on ya, Phil. You, of course, are right to be annoyed at this indiscriminate use of “miracle” when it was clear that excellent medical science saved the day. But, you are also correct that the language used in OP was a bit strong.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:24 am
I’m just sad the apology was necessary. The first post wasn’t making fun of her, or wishing her harm. The fact that you need to apologize for talking about the situation around the aftermath of her accident is just audience politics.
You didn’t do anything wrong in the first post, unless you count “not fawning” as “wrong”. Sure, she took it bad. That’s not uncommon: she’s having a rough time, and people get defensive and irritable when times are rough. They (we) expect that everyone should pay attention to our plight. But it’s not your fault she’s having a bad time, and you never wished her harm.
Sure, help her if you like. But it should be noted that the point of the original essay is still important: don’t cherry-pick your data.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Man, this is why I don’t hang out with the skeptics crowd. Some of you are just as easily offended as the religious wackos. God forbid I say “It’s a miracle!” Oh wait, I said “God.” Give me a break. I don’t believe in God but I say “God forbid” all the time. Who cares?
I’m all for promoting rationality, the scientific method, and empirical, objective thought; but at what point do you get the right to be condescending and pretentious? Our message would be heard much more clearly if it were spoken with compassion and understanding.
Phil, I commend you for getting off of your holy dais to apologize. I was actually going to unsubscribe from your feed after that post. And to Shannon Malloy, I sincerely hope your recovery is speedy and as painless as possible. We’re lucky to have you with us still… and it doesn’t matter how you define “luck.”
May 17th, 2007 at 5:37 am
I don’t think you did anything wrong. But I can understand not wanting to possibly have any hard feelings.
May 17th, 2007 at 5:43 am
I did feel your attack on using the word “luck” was a bit harsh but it’s refreshing to see someone stand up and say “I was wrong”.
And it’s even better to set up a fund on Paypal which I am about to donate to!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:52 am
You’re a good man Dr. Plait!
May 17th, 2007 at 5:53 am
There is of course a very good reason the Catholic church is so conservative about approving the use of the term “miracle”. It can open a real can of worms, with attendant prayers to saints, etc. The word has been so abused in the popular media it has lost most of its real meaning, which is an expression of awe and gratitude over a mystery.
The “how” of reality is the province of science. The “why” of reality may never be known, if indeed there is a “why”, but seeking to know is what we do.
Are there woo-woos who reject any rational explanation of events? Of course. Should they be slapped up alongside the head with brutal facts? Sometimes, but a little compassion goes a long way toward defusing rejection of critical thinking.
We must remember that the evolution of sentience is not a universal progression. For some, the world may remain a magical place for a very long time. For some, the world is still flat. Our objective must be to minimize the social impact of such wishful thinking, that the species may continue to evolve toward competant sentience. The awareness that we are not the penultimate consciousness in this universe, that we have a long way to go in our comprehension of mystery, should keep us a little bit humble.
Believe what you wish, but don’t base your life on an arrogant presumption of superiority, in the certainty of the existence or non-existence of god. For some belief systems, certainty will not come until we’re dead, and maybe not even then,,,
Be compassionate toward those less able, for we are all one family,,,
GAry 7
May 17th, 2007 at 6:02 am
I don’t think the “attack” on the word luck was harsh, nor do I think the BA was wrong for pointing it out. People all too often ascribe bad or unfavourable events to human causes or actions, and ascribe good or favourable events to luck or divine intervention.
But if the BA’s tone actually caused this woman’s suffering to be increased, then he’s also right to apologize for it, and I’m glad he brought it up publicly. It allows some of us out here to also see the repercussions, and to learn from them.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:02 am
I’d love to contribute; however, I’m presently unable to contribute due to my being a college student with almost no income.
Shannon, being non-religious, I can’t say that I’ll pray for you, or anything along those lines. I will not forget about you, though, and if you are still in need a few years from now, which I hope you’re not for your own sake, I should be making at least a little more money & I will be more than happy to contribute to this fund.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:12 am
I have to admit I did not think at all the original post was harsh. I do think the big difference is this time that the individual who was part of that story got involved and it changes things. Whenever we get confronted with the individual behind a story it becomes more difficult not to be affected.
To be affected I think is a sign of normal human being. I think free trade is a good thing for the planet and if we can manufacture more efficiently elsewhere we should. The lost jobs will be replaced by other jobs. Voicing that behind my keyboard is really quite easy. Sitting across from someone who has just lost his job to a guy somewhere in China, gets a bit more complicated…
I hope Sharon will do well. I wish her all the best for the future. It sounds like she was very lucky to me. In a totally atheistic, skeptical and scientific way….
May 17th, 2007 at 6:17 am
>>>Bad Astronomer, Phil - you see? Now you get the point? Being skeptical - YES, overzealousness and intolerance - NO. Criticizing the language - well, why not, another thing is making mockery of someones beliefs (im not talking about all the crooks and liars, just regular good olk with their set of values and beliefs). Be tolerant.
Do not be infantile in this “fight”.
I was quite surprised by the tone your writing took in that blog entry, I thought you were someone who is analytical, not hysterical. And now this post - well, we’re all humans, not everyone has the guts to admit to a mistake. Nice.
Take heed of the late great Carl Sagan - he always seemed polite, tolerant, understanding, easy going and yet he could get his point across, with great results. He was the man. And i guess you like him too
You’re a great guy, good luck (oops).
May 17th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Phil,
It’s good to see that your heart is as big as your… telescope.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Joshua owes me a new keyboard :).
May 17th, 2007 at 6:35 am
Wayne said:
Too often skeptics can come across as arrogant or callous
In my experience, callousness and arrogance are the default attitudes of skeptics. I’m glad Phil took the time to apologize for his rant, but the level of intolerance shown routinely on skeptic forums is particularly wearying to me personally. Can’t we all just get along?
May 17th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Ron, go back to work making human-robots, when they’re all converted - they’ll get along
May 17th, 2007 at 6:48 am
“Forgive my stupidity… but, if Shannon needs this surgery to recover, why it’s up to her family to pay? I can’t imagine such a thing happening where I live.”
Welcome to the only industrialized nation that does not provide health care to its citizens (the only one I know of, anyway). Its a national embarrassment.
May 17th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Phil,
You are amazing with words! Thank you!!! Shannon & I couldn’t stop talking about you yesterday. I hope your move goes well & we would love to meet you face to face when you get to Boulder. Thank you also to everyone posting on here. We may have gotten off on the wrong note, but this is a wonderful group of people. I’ll post an update soon.
~Twyla
May 17th, 2007 at 7:41 am
I commend you Phil, for expressing your thoughtful apology. I think it illustrates some of my ideals of science. When you gather new information or begin to see things differently, you revise your position just as publicly as you made your first position known. Acknowledging mistakes is important in science and academia. It reminds us all that our ideas and data are fallable and subject to revision.
I also appreciate your apology and change of tone as you reached out to Shannon and those involved. I knew it was there all along, but doing so blatantly showed your sensitivity and empathy with your fellow human (I happen to think you are opposed to irrationality precisely *because* you care about your fellow humans). Those qualities can get lost in the quagmire of opposing antiscience (though I never read your original article as opposing Shannon in any way).
I agree with others that sometimes scientists and skeptics can come off as pompous and dismissive. For those who are unwittingly “wrong” in their beliefs, receiving the message that there is another way of thinking about things can be lost when delivered in a tone that makes them feel defensive. The message can get lost, as you acknowledge happened for some people with your original post.
I spoke with Joe Nickell of CSICOP about this a few years ago. I wish more people challenging pseudo- and antiscience would take a polite, empathic tack. I’m not saying it is easy. It can be frustrating or even infuriating when someone is doing something you are opposed to. But if your goal is to get your point across and have it seriously considered by the largest number of people as possible, then possibly being friendly is more effective than being snarky or belligerent (I’m not saying *you* are).
Of course, my suggestion is not empirically based. I don’t know that being polite is a more effective way of getting the message across. It is my sense. If it happens to be that ranting, and making fun of people are more effective, then I guess that’s an answer. But I doubt it. I suspect you probably do to.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I agree with Josh, Paul, Craig, and Kristopher, there was no reason for an apology of this sort . Phil you did nothing wrong. You CORRECTLY pointed out an irrational response to a lucky situation. I’m sorry Shannon is having a rough time of it, but frankly, the alternative is that she would be dead. If she (and anyone else) insists on believing in miracles then how can they demand sensitivity about their situation? According to them its a miracle isn’t it?
Is saying so harsh? Yes it is, but it was her PUBLIC words that were found insulting in the first place. What was said and the response to them where focused around the idea of miracles, not what condition Shannon is in. Regardless of who or what condition she is in, her comments where incorrect and blatantly ignorant of rational thought. To not say anything suggests acceptance.
It just seems to me that the one under attack here is Phil for voicing an opinion. His own humanity has been used against him and it appears as if he has not only backed down for his original statement, but has been forced into a form of reparation. Once again rational thinking has been forced into taking these crazy beliefs seriously and respectfully simply because we feel sorry for the situation surrounding the people that flaunt them. But because I disagree with what she believes then I’m branded cold, inhuman, or non-feeling.
If Phil’s words and the comments of the people responding to the blog make Shannon feel uncomfortable then maybe that is good. She (and anyone else with similar superstitious beliefs) should be embarrassed for what they present to the public when if flies in the face of reason and logic. If Shannon feels bad because someone challenges her claims of miracles then too bad. They are silly.
I have a great deal of empathy for her condition and the very rough times ahead of her, but that empathy does not include her ridiculous beliefs and I shall never apologize for that.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Interesting. I recall when my late wife was very sick with cancer (dying) a lot of her Christian friends kept telling her she was being ridiculous by not sharing their faith. They were quite hurtful (blaming the disease on her lack of faith) and also felt they should not have to apologize.
I guess by and large people are people whether skeptic, Christian, or whatever.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Nolwe,
You say you’d like to contribute to Shannon’s fund but you’re a struggling college student. Don’t sweat it. You just donated. I doubled my donation.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:38 am
There are already too many comments here to be able to reply to them all, but let me say that there was indeed a need to apologize. My tone in that post was over the top, pure and simple. There was no need for it. Like I said, even if it hadn’t hurt Shannon, it would have been wrong because it distracted from the message.
This is a big issue with me, and one I will think about more. There are many arguments in the skeptical community about how to approach discussing religion, beliefs, antiscience, and the rest. Some are very aggressive, some are insulting, some are supportive, some are empathic. I actually do think there is room for all of this– when someone’s religious belief motivates them to kill people, then I think a little anger is called for. Sometimes a more nurturing disposition is needed.
This issue won’t go away any time soon, and it’s worth discussing.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Rick, I guess I’m still in the dark about what was insulting in calling something a “miracle”.
Just because you CAN say something doesn’t mean you should. Was there something inherently wrong with what Phil said? Perhaps not. The tone was off, and that leads me to question why he needed to say it at all?
There’s a law of diminishing returns on some of our stands and however righteous we might feel about defending some point, at times you have to look at the bigger picture. Phil did, and I applaud him.
While I am a sceptic, I am beginning to see that there are extremists on this side of the fence and that extremism in the defense of rationalism can be a vice. This isn’t in reference to Phil’s comment, but to an intolerance that is becoming more and more evident in our community as a whole. Just what we need, more intolerance.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:45 am
I read the original newspaper article just today, and went back and read Phil’s initial response to the article about Shannon. I didn’t go back and read all the comments in response.
What I read was Phil taking the writer of the original article to task about the general tone of the article and the use of the word “miracle.” And it turned out later that the original writer made other factual errors - there’s no way a chiropractor would be involved in that sort of emergency care (Shannon might need one in the future, but that’s a different matter). What Shannon believes is, frankly, up to her. If religious belief helps get her through this arduous time, I’d be the last person to argue with her. Those of us who are atheists and those of us who aren’t do need to try to live together in harmony or become the next Iraq, Israel, Palestine…
I wholeheartedly agree with Phil’s original posting on this point, but also with his apology to Shannon. The only person he should never apologize to is the original writer of the newspaper article.
I was raised as a liberal Protestant, but my mother could have been a Catholic with her constant use of the word “miracle.” My mother is a very dear person, but statistics have never been her strong point. So my youngest brother, born perfectly well despite my mother having had German measles early in her pregnancy, was “the miracle baby.” When he was found to have a heart murmur that caused him no problem, it was another miracle. When he survived a car accident, it was another miracle. And so on. So I’ve been a strong skeptic about the use of the word “miracle” all my life.
Despite my atheism, it is a miracle that Shannon survived. And I don’t mean it in the “touched by God” kind of thing. A miracle of nature, if you will. A miracle of her having the accident near an excellent trauma center. It is an amazing thing that she survived at all. What are the odds - 1 in a few hundred million? If that’s not a miracle, what is?
May 17th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Sometimes it’s hard to discuss the general lack critical thinking skills that abound without introducing specifics. Anyway, having now read all of the blogs/comments I’m glad it’s all worked out ok in the end.
I’ll add my best wishes for a speedy recovery as well!
May 17th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I don’t see why you should apologise for anything. It’s your blog, you can say whatever the hell you want. I see this apology as a public relations move to to try to win back those who threatened to stop reading after the original post. The type of people who stop reading over one post they disagree with are the type of people I wouldn’t want reading my blog anyway.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:15 am
What does this have to do with science? All I can tell is that you offended someone and you didn’t intend that. The fact that you regret it doesn’t mean that you’re “wrong,” and has nothing to do with science or skepticism. Even the most credulous person can still be a nice guy.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
I’m not sure you did anything wrong, Phil, but I have to admit, what you wrote before was harshly worded - certainly moreso than you had intended at the outset and with the advantage of hindsight, I think you see that too. Once in a while, we all pop off on the internet. The Cephalopod Conjecture states that, when seated at a keyboard, everyone loses 30-50 IQ points. This can cause anyone to do things on the internet that they may regret later, and because not everyone has the IQ points to spare, can result in phenomenal idiocy (Rene… or that Time Cube guy).
Glad to see you can take it as well as dish it out. I don’t want to see the core idea of your original message lost, however. Your premise was spot on, even if it could have been better worded.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:37 am
In any case, I wouldn’t stop reading as the result of one post. People have to have thicker skins than that…
May 17th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Evolving Squid wrote:
The Cephalopod Conjecture states that, when seated at a keyboard, everyone loses 30-50 IQ points.
I love that!
Not to mention, another 50 points if alcohol or crack is involved…
May 17th, 2007 at 9:55 am
It’s difficult to look at such a tragedy in an objective, logical manner. You were simply trying to show how such an accident and its outcome were from statistics and probability and not from some magical forces such as luck, divine intervention, or other hogwash. I don’t see that you really did anything wrong. Was it insensitive? Sure, but that was the point. It didn’t say “Oh Shannon, deal with it”; there wasn’t a human element involved with the analysis of the tragedy. It is the same with law, where we remove the emotion and look at the pure hard facts when we make our rulings. I don’t think you insulted Shannon, you weren’t talking about that. You were talking about how the odds just played out so wonderfully in her favor and that she survived. How many in similar circumstances did not survive? You were just trying to attribute survival to the reality of probability and deflect it from superstition.
I’m glad she survived and I will donate to help her out, it’s the least any of us can do.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Phil, you are a gentleman and a truly caring human being. But I do want to say, as someone who has just been through a horrific car accident (and still recovering from it), that I didn’t take any offense at your original entry. In fact, I found it most apropos and thought-provoking, and not at all heartless.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Well done, Phil. We all screw up from time to time; not all of us admit it and do what we can to correct the consequences of our mistakes.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Congratulations! This is one of the best enteries I ever read here. Not because it’s scientific, no, it’s human. And your many comments about “luck and faith” sometimes seemed very cold.
But this apology is nothing like that. I hope this will help you in the future when you write again about something like that. Because I think, there is no need to “critisize” everything in the world that has a tone of “supernaturality”. Luck is something that is maybe statistical but feelings are not. And the feeling beeing lucky or haveing some bit of luck is sometimes more important than being “always rational”.
Well. Enaugh!
Once again: Congratulations and thank you.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Grizzly, the insult is people so blithely take away the efforts of their fellow humans and apply it to the work of some supernatural reason. As Phil pointed out, it really is just a matter of statistics and probabilities that some very impossible seeming things happen on occasion.
I find it interesting now that the new defense is to declare “extremist”. The discussion here was whether what happened was a miracle or not. As I said, I l sorry for the pain that Shannon has suffered, but that does not excuse the spreading of ‘miracles’ as fact. Call me an intolerant extremist if you like, but I’m simply looking at the situation and basing my conclusion on the facts. I simply feel that what Phil pointed out originally is now being buried in all the touchy-feely empathy of her situation. “How dare you say such mean things to that poor girl!?”
Empathy for her condition and opinion of the “miracle” are 2 separate topics and to try and blend them together seems like a tactic designed to lose the initial point in all the confusion of who is humane and inhumane. So I guess I am an intolerant extremist because I refuse to allow my empathy for her condition to effect my feelings of her declarations.
May 17th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.”
Albert Einstein
I prefer the second way.
–darth
May 17th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The Bad Astronomer wrote: I was disappointed in myself.
I was disappointed too…
NOT for what you originally wrote…but for the apology.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I saw this post, today, and then went back to read the rest of the comments on the previous post.
I am truly sorry if anything I said was taken personally, as none of it was meant against Shannon or any other individual. Everything I said was in general, and conditional. I was going on the limited information I had. I did a search, actually, to see if I could find the cause of the accident, but couldn’t, anywhere. Generally, if the media wants to put a positive spin on a story, they leave out anything negative. Since the cause had been left out, I was left to assume that it was her fault. People can attack me for making an assumption, but I tried to make it clear that it was just that. My assumption. I even said why I came to that conclusion - which I guess makes it more of a hypothesis.
Anyway, I can explain myself as much as I want, and it won’t matter. Nothing I said was meant to hurt anyone. I’m glad that Shannon is recovering, and hope she continues to do so. Anything else I have to say on the matter is moot, so I will leave this at a simple apology.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I read the news story elsewhere and had exactly the same reaction you did, Phil, and concur with your view entirely.
later that day I read in a book about formula one auto racing that a head decelerated at 80Gs produces a half ton of force on the neck it’s connect to.
The fact that Shannon survived such a force isn’t a miracle, it was physics and biology with a big dose of probability.
Regardless, I’m sure glad she survived even if her understanding of why, and her physicians choice of words, is sad.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
This is why I see skepticism as a virtue - skeptics aspire to being open to being shown wrong and to openly admit to being wrong if and when that happens. And instead of sweeping our mistakes under the carpet, trying to foget them as quickly as possible, we try and draw lessons out of them, to do better in the future. This is the ideal of skepticism, at least. We may not always succeed in achieving that ideal (we are falliable people, after all), but we aspire to it.
It always warms my heart to see this sort of integrity in action. Phill, you’ve got class!
May 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Woman has accident
Report is written about accident
Blog writer makes an entry based on report
Blog writer, being popular, supercedes original report
Nearest and dearest have issue with blog entry
Blog writer searches heart, issues apology, and arranges donations to help woman.
Funny how things turn out, isn’t it?
May 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Add to the list of callous and uncaring as attributes of skeptics: cheap (and/or) poor. I bet the pot doesn’t break $50.
In addition automobile insurance normally pays for this kind of thing. Most of what you pay in your premium is for injuries. Attorneys like Geoffrey Fieger (Kevorkian’s attorney etc.) and John Edwards (the senator not the psychic) made their vast fortunes in cases exactly like this.
Now if you want something a bit more miraculous, cut a starfish into five arms and a body and each arm grows a new body now >that’s
May 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
For those that criticise BA for apologising, you have only my deepest contempt.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Phil, you are truly a gentleman.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
This happens to the best of us. We say something that gets a bit out of hand, then cause others grief. I ran into this once myself. Fortunately, I was able to correct the misunderstanding.
I would very much like to contribute, but as a future unemployed student, I can not. All I can donate is my best wishes. I’ve had a family member suffar an accident (not one on the road, but at home) who was no so fortunate to live.
I’d also like to point out that I know some people (no names please) that would not find it in themselves to apologize as Phil did.
May 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
“What does this have to do with science? ”
Not everything in Phil’s blog has to do with science. He’s making a public apology.
Could you do the same in this exact situation?
May 17th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
james Says: For those that criticise BA for apologising, you have only my deepest contempt.
As you have your opinion, I have mine, however, why would you “feel contempt”?
I feel no contempt for those who agree with the BA for apologizing, and would certainly not chastise anyone who would share that opinion.
May 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Two Comments:
1. Troy Said “Add to the list of callous and uncaring as attributes of skeptics: cheap (and/or) poor. I bet the pot doesn’t break $50.”
Bite me you creepy jerk, I can tell you that the fund is $300.00 richer as of 5 mins ago. People like you make me sick.
2. Phil, yer a good guy and even tho I had no problem with the original post, I certainly can appreciate your sense of humanity and honor. When you get moved to Colorado, I would consider it an real pleasure to buy you dinner and have a great conversation on the value of skeptisizm. I know a small group of amature sky watchers who would love to meet ya and make you feel welcome to our part of the country. I actually mean it, so if you’re interested, let me know :o)
May 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Any word on the total of the fund, BA? I would really like to know how big skeptics hearts really are.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
There’s a great lesson here. I think people who take up the torch to passionately and publicly debate things they believe in (because the evidence supports them) will eventually rally a field of supporters and as such, will find themselves, if you can forgive a slightly ironic analogy, preaching to the choir. Unfortunately, holding arguments with like-minded people can make us complacent, forgetting that there are still countless people who haven’t traveled as far down the road as we have. I think it’s this complacency that results in comments that sound snarky and close-minded, even when that’s not the intent.
The lesson (for me) is that despite how many times we reaffirm to ourselves that the evidence supports us or how tiring it becomes to hear the ‘same old, same old’ regarding unscientific reasoning and beliefs, it doesn’t serve to educate the masses if we forget that the debate, for most people, is still just beginning. And I think the objective with a site like this is indeed education.
I just want to thank you, BA, for this post. It is a reminder of a lesson I personally was in need of.
May 17th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Regarding:
DenverAstro Says:May 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“Two Comments:
1. Troy Said “Add to the list of callous and uncaring as attributes of skeptics: cheap (and/or) poor. I bet the pot doesn’t break $50.†Bite me you creepy jerk, I can tell you that the fund is $300.00 richer as of 5 mins ago. People like you make me sick.”
I’ll say one thing I wish I could give away $300 and think nothing of it (why not $500 or even $1000), though nothing I said was unbecoming as what you said. I only offered the truth, and like many gullible the truth makes you sick. I don’t think I’m being totally baseless here who would have more trouble raising funds Peter Popoff or James Randi? One offers eternal life or healing on a regiment of checks the other would tell you the truth (that he keeps being sued).
May 17th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
RAF: Having just read the OP again I agree with you, whether others like James feels contempt for me or not, as I still don’t see why BA need apologise. Unless it is public relations exercise, damn there is that cynic again. As the original post said nothing much about Shannon herself or the accident beyond commenting on the accuracy or otherwise of the use of some of the words in an article about her accident and survival. Though there were a few replies to BA’s OP that could be considered insensitive and I have seen some of them apologise for that here.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Can I use my credit card or cheque number on Paypal?
May 17th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Ah OK, I answered my question.
My excuse is that I’m waiting for a new debit card in the post, but I’ll donate within the week.
I’d like to see the BA select other deserving causes from time to time in the future. I’m guessing that he makes quite a good fund raiser and he’s got a generous readership- even though the students amongst us are relatively dirt-poor.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
As an aside, do people truely feel such depths of emotion as “contempt” for strangers commenting on another stranger’s feelings about a third stranger, who none of the previously cited will ever talk to?
Having empathy for fellow humans is probably a good thing.
Having contempt for those to whom you have never personally spoken is much more probably a bad thing.
Language matters. The fact that, in this case, the language mattered only to a few dozen people does not absolve one from accepting criticism of the language, and being greater for acknowledging its error.
What was originally said may be valid, but it was said about living humans. When those humans are vital enough to interject with their opinions, said opinions should be considered, and the individual persons involved should, in any free market-place of ideas, be allowed to criticize as they see fit.
I believe that in this case the criticism was honestly given, and thoughtfully recieved, and that the best scenario has played forth on our little interweb stage.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Troy: Don’t be a troll. There’s a place for biting sarcasm and this page isn’t it. Also, don’t assume that because someone can generously donate 300 dollars, that the person is rich and the donation is Mickey Mouse money to them.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Of course Dr Plait’s apology is all a public relations exercise! If people leave this blog in droves, he will lose the $3.15 a month profit he makes in running this blog. And that would be devastating!
For crying out loud, people, this is a private individual running a free, not-for-profit blog, for personal enjoyment and as a service to the community. He’s not making money on it, nor is he (as far as I can tell) some sad egotist who weeps tears of despair if his traffic drops off. He could care less if someone states “I will never read this blog again!”
So his apology is genuine. I’m the biggest cynic out there, and I can see that.
Sheesh.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Argh! Argh! “He couldn’t care less!”
I shall now commit Grammar Sepuku, before the Grammar Police on this board get to me. It’s the easier, less painful way to go…
May 17th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Of course I feel with Shannon (in the abstract kind of way that you can feel with people you’ve never met and never will meet), but setting up a PayPal account to help with her surgery displays the same lack of statistical thinking that you rightly criticized in your original post. There must be hundreds (thousands?) of people who narrowly survive horrible accidents each day, and each of them needs our compassion and most of them would need our financial support.
To donate money to one individual just because her case was taken up on a blog one sometimes reads is a substitute action that is not rationally defensible. It will make us feel better because first, we can tell ourselves that we have helped a fellow human being and second, it may satisfy our superstition that if we help others, others will help us when *we* need it. However, in reality, first, the extent to which we have reduced the sum of human suffering is so small it is not even worth mentioning, and second, nobody keeps account to make sure we will be repaid in kind when it is our turn to suffer. It would be more useful to donate to some organization that provides medical care more widely for people who cannot afford it.
I pray to a God I don’t believe in that nothing as horrible as Shannon’s accident ever happens to anyone close to me. Should it happen anyway, I will do anything to find the money to help them. Literally anything — I would rob a bank or steal luxury cars if there was no other way, and I certainly would not think twice about shaming strangers into donating money. I would even be grateful for their donations, but I would be perfectly aware that I have exploited people’s inability to think in statistical terms.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Oh, please. “Could care less” is a well-established idiom. “modal + less” has such strong negative polarity that an overt negative marker is no longer needed. (Cf “pas” in French which no longer needs its “ne”) Is it “logical”? No. But language rarely is. And the definition of “idiom” is that you can’t figure out its meaning by knowing the meanings of the constituent words…
I happen to agree with Phil’s original point - I hate people giving the credit to God especially when, for instance, the rescue was the product of well-trained people with great technology working very very hard. But tone is important, too. If the people involved were hurt, an apology for tone isn’t out of line.
May 18th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Frank: If only one person in 6.5 billion is helped thru a tough time, that is NOT an insignificant contribution to the reduction of human suffering.
Every journey begins with the first step.
GAry 7
May 18th, 2007 at 6:06 am
There is of course the story of the brother and sister walking along the beach after a storm where a load of jellyfish (or starfish) had been wash ashore and were slowly dying. Every so often the boy would throw a creature back into the sea, and thus another chance to live. The sister asked why he was doing it as there were thousands driven ashore and he could not save them all, so what does it matter. The boy threw another creature back into the sea and said, “well it mattered to that one.”
May 18th, 2007 at 6:06 am
We here in cow country seem to always get this blog long after the crowd that doesn’t do any milking, so my comments may never be seen but I sure would like to respond to old grinchy Frank. Statistically, our donations may not make much of a difference, but with his reasoning it seems that we should just abandon all charity and efforts to help others. Now, I suspect that Shannon will somehow get through her ordeal, with financial pain to match her physical pain. As a cancer survivor, I can tell you that the scum sucking insurance companies will deny everything they can, and most of us end up paying most of the bills from our savings. Still, compared to the third world, we are more likely to get by, and that is why instead of donating to Shannon’s cause I will instead go straight to Children International where a few dollars buys a lot of food for malnourished children, not another set of clubs for the surgeon. All in all, the comments from the skeptical crowd were most unskeptical and full of love and compassion and understanding. But I’m biased, being one of them.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:15 am
I think that people’s beliefs should be respected, so long as they’re not harmful. If a woman who’s barely survived death believes she was saved by a miracle, luck, or whatever, it’s hardly going to harm anyone and I fail to see why a bunch of randoms in cyberspace should be angsting over it. Well done to Phil for his apology, it takes real guts to admit to yourself that you were wrong, much less admitting it to anyone else.
As for some of the others on here… whatever happened to live and let live? Some of the militant skeptics and atheists out there seem utterly oblivious to the hypocrisy of their words, when they so undeservingly deem another’s beliefs “ridiculous”, “misguided”, “stupid” etc. You would be in hysterics if some arrogant Christian or such were to say the same of your own beliefs and opinions! Frankly, anyone who is unable to respect and tolerate another person’s beliefs (and incapable of telling when “free speech” is just being tactless and insensitive) is just as nasty and self-righteous as any other - be they Jerry Falwell, or some of the skeptical schmucks commenting on this blog.
My father survived a car accident 3 years before I was born, in which he suffered what is known as a ‘Hangman’s fracture’. He should have died. Yet, his neck muscles spasmed at the precise moment it broke, preventing his spinal cord from injury. He wasn’t even paralysed. Horrifyingly, his injury went unnoticed by the first doctor who treated him and wanted to immediately send him home from the small town hospital to which he’d been taken, without even an x-ray! Like Shannon, he required surgery and a similar halo brace. I have no idea what it was that saved my father at the moment of fracture and later from the moronic doctor, whether it was God, some kind of guardian spirit, luck, or merely a very fortunate but entirely un-supernatural chain of events… but I’m rather glad it happened. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing this.
Oh, and for the record: I’m not a Christian.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:36 am
MO Man, I respect your personal history and I feel with you as far as that is possible between total strangers. I also agree with your evaluation of insurance companies and I have seen friends suffer needlessly and terribly because their insurance companies would not fulfil their end of the bargain. However, your statement that one “should just abandon all charity and efforts to help others” does not in any way follow from what I wrote and it does not reflect what I believe. I think those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to afford it should give freely to others. However, I don’t think that fundraisers for individuals who happened to be noticed by the media/blogosphere/whoever are the right way of giving. Instead, I personally believe that one should give to organizations who can ensure that the money is spent fairly on everyone who needs it, not just a few celebrity victims (and I practice what I preach). Of course, it would never cross my mind to tell other people what to do. If, for example, DenverAstro (above) wants to donate $300 to an individual stranger, this certainly shows that s/he is a very generous and compassionate person. We should all be lucky to have friends like him/her. However, it also shows that s/he has a major cognitive bias of the same kind that is displayed by people who had something terrible happen to them, survived it by pure chance, and then believe that they were somehow important enough to “God” to make “Him” save them by a miracle, while at the same time they see no contradiction in the fact that the same “God” allows thousands of people to starve, soldiers to die in senseless wars, children to be killed in random accidents, leaving behind parents who will never recover.
As for stories of little boys rescuing starfish and journeys that begin with the first step - puhlease! Are you going to start quoting scripture at me next?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Well put Kat, I completely agree. There is an important difference between scientific thinking, which is a communal activity for the advancement of science, and personal reflection, which is a subjective experience that is part of what each person has the right to judge for themselves. Each have their place, and neither can infringe on the other and still be true to themself and their own purpose. Skeptics should recognize that skepticism, as they practice it, is itself a personal belief system.
May 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Ken G says: skeptics should recognize that skepticism, as they practice it, is itself a belief system.
And just WHY should skeptics “recognize” this???
How is requiring conformational evidence BEFORE accepting a new idea a “belief system”???
May 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
If that is indeed what self-styled skeptics actually did, then you would be right– it would not be a belief system. But that is not what they do, and counterexamples are quite trivial to find on any page of a “skeptic” website. What they in fact do is promote a particular belief system, which philosophers would term “positivism”. A true skeptic would be doubtful of positivism as well.
May 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
No right-minded person would be anything but delighted that this girl survived, but I don’t see why you have to apologise.
There is a movement of the offended in the West, mostly from the religious, that is using the “I am offended” routine to stop criticism of others and hence stop open debate. In this case we cannot criticise this woman’s choice of words because she is offended.
Well so what? I personally, and genuinely wish her all the best and am happy she is still here and survived a horrific ordeal, but we will all suffer in life. In fact all over the world at this very moment there are millions of real people starving, being butchered, raped, tortured and so on. Even in our own lives we will lose children, suffer terrible hardship and probably die in pain and misery. In most cases those doing the butchering are those who shall not be offended.
Maybe you should not have used a specific person, and you have shown decency in your response, but we must have the right to offend or else we have closed debate.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Twyla, Phil, you truly are good persons. People like you make the world a better place.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Ken G, Yay! Someone on this blog does understand the difference between ‘belief system’ and ‘religion’. In a discussion on the original Shannon comments I chanced on the term ‘worldview’ as a less charged term.
May 18th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Firstly, this just shows - AGAIN, AS ALWAYS!!! - that Dr. Plait is a kind, honorable, nice, warm, caring, gentile man.
*I* don’t think his apology necessary, but peace isn’t always brought from “necessary” things. Sometimes those things necessary for peace are their own necessity. This seams to have smoothed most (all by my count, but I may have missed a couple) of the ruffled feathers.
*BA* thought it necessary. Shannon + Company thought so (and/or at least appreciated it). What more is necessary?
If nothing else, thanks for posting the “fund” info. I KNOW (not “believe”
that everybody wishes Shannon and her family/friends the best recovery.
One snarky comment, though: “303 666 0508″
Am *I* the only one chuckling…? :>
May 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
It’s not cold or callous to speak the truth. BA was commenting on a “news story”. Unless one seriously thinks he wants the subject of the story to suffer, or to come to harm, why should he have to preemptively start out with something like: “This is something I can’t imagine going through… I sincerely hope she has as good a recovery as possible. I know what it would be like to have a loved one of mine were to suffer so. I’m sure her family takes comfort in that she survived so relatively unharmed, and, while a difficult road lay ahead, their love and companionship can go on through the surgery and rehabilitation ahead…”?
Why can’t you politely assume that -anyone-, including me, feels this way. We -are- all human. Really. And if, before you -choose- to take offense due to the omission of something akin to the above, perhaps you could take a look around a person’s site/blog and get a feel for “them”. People need to think before they react/write: blogs are like long conversations, between the author and we the readers. What was discussed before isn’t suddenly lost, null, and/or void. Opinions and thoughts shared before are still valid. Plus, as exemplified in this specific instance, Dr. Plait wasn’t talking to the affected, to the wrong. He was talking to -us-, The Converted; preaching to us, The Choir. If he were speaking -to- Shannon, it would have been broached differently - IF AT ALL! (Not due to cowardice, but to that “sensitivity” so many of you were quick to condemn him, and the rest of us, of not having.)
It’s like you walk up to a couple on the street discussing this same story. You walk in at the part where the guy says, “It’s wrong for people to attribute statistically improbability to a miracle. It was unlikely, not impossible…”
Sure, I know fights in public places spring up from less, but that doesn’t make it any more “right” or “logical”.
Websites, like any media, tends/trends to like-minded people. So, generally speaking, conversations are apt to be lacking in gratuitous frivolities and cut to the nitty gritty. Even speculation, based on experience, thought, whatever. A saying my great-grandmother used to always say applied to this sentiment: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” Especially on BA’s site. It attracts a bit more cerebral crowd. We might say something that’s 100% wrong, but not unlikely. And without further facts, we might openly conjecture. But not to fabulous conclusions; rather, logical ones. But we may be incorrect compared to the facts. (Provide some FACTS and allow us to be corrected, to -be- correct.)
And before you truly “compassionate” and “caring” believers/defenders go out of your way to belittle others - like me - for not being so, perhaps you could put in the effort to listen, read, and pay attention to us. Be honest. If cut, we also bleed.
And even Spoc cried…
May 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Someone who talks to a newspaper/TV reporter is in the spotlight. Especially -today-. The WWW was ‘90, “caught on” around ‘94/’95. It’s been over 10 years. We all know what we say publicly (including to The Press, who will publish it [on the Web, too]) will be on the Internet within hours. And it never goes away.
If you put yourself out there, or allow yourself to be, you must know you -may- be talked about. Not “talked to”, but -about-.
You -may- get used as an example of what someone is trying to say, or is talking -about-.
If BA had researched and found Shannon’s mother, called her up, smooth-talked his way into getting Shannon’s number, called -her- up, and then told her she was stupid for believing in miracles, that’d be one thing.
But that never happened.
He quoted the relevant points from a news website to illustrate his point.
And, like it or not, it’s a valid, and true (to we thinking, rational, folks):
We have no testable examples of “miracles”, nor “luck”.
This situation is no exception.
Improbability != Impossibility
The injured in this story calls her situation a miracle. That’s incorrect.
The doctors parrot that sentiment. Not only in correct, but disturbing.
If a god changed the outcome - produced a “miracle” - by allowing Shannon to not be dead/paralyzed, he must also be given credit for -causing- the accident, too. It’s not intellectually honest to pick out things to give praise for.
I don’t believe (even when he says such in his latest apology) that BA “forgot” or “didn’t realize” there was a HUMAN BEING at the heart of this story. After all, that was the point. This HUMAN BEING chose to consider some mystical power/influence changed her life for the better. Just like BILLIONS of other HUMAN BEINGS do every day. Ignoring the accident that happened (was allowed-to happen; was caused by; whatever) beforehand.
That’s bad thinking. It’s dishonest. That was his point. He made it plainly. So he didn’t preface, or wrap-up his post with platitudes. (Again, even a cursory browse of BA’s site would demonstrate he’s a good, nice, caring guy.) That wasn’t the point. The illogic dishonestly many people - even out of habit - succumb to.
That’s what he was writing about.
Not whether she “deserved” to live. Or have a speedier recovery. Or should suffer.
That all wasn’t the point.
It’s at least as intellectually dishonest to chastise him so when these truths are so plain (look around his site; hell, just ASSUME he’s a basic human himself!).
It’s intellectually dishonest to bemoan him for “picking” on Shannon. He didn’t. Shannon put herself out there - EVEN IF SHE DIDN’T THINK ANYBODY WOULD TALK ABOUT THIS, OR CARE - by speaking to reporters. You wanna gripe at somebody?? Give the TV station hell for trying to make their nightly “warm and fuzzy human-interest story/make the christians happy” quota. (Do us all the favor of not arguing that that’s exactly what this piece was about to them. I thank you in advance.)
What kind of world have we wrought when one must water down what one says so as not to “offend” another. So as not to “shock”? “Pick on”? Make to “feel bad”? John Adams, “1776″ movie (SEE IT): “This is a REVO-LUTION, dammit! We’re going to have to offend SOMEbody!” Hypersensitivity, especially when used to stifle commentary, is at best hollow, and at worse it diminishes us all.
The -truth- is BA (I of course agree) believed, and believes that Shannon is incorrect in her thinking. If she’s offended, that’s her choice. If her friend, Twyla, wants to be offended -for- her, Twyla’s choice. Other readers/commentators wish to feign offence, that’s their choice. But that quite obviously was not BA’s goal, nor purpose.
It was to point out illogical “thinking”…
May 18th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
RAF,
Apologies, (like ‘please and thankyou’ rituals, birthday cards and smiling/nodding to someone you know to acknowledge that you have seen them) are without cost to the giver, but of great value to the reciever.
I have little concern for someone that does not observe these social rituals, or even for someone that choses not to use them for reasons of logic (ie not saying ‘bless you’ to a sneeze)
However, I cannot accept someone criticising someone else’s apology (unless it is a ‘politician’s apology’)
If you would like an illogical trigger for my emotion on this one:
my mother criticised John-Paul II for apologising for the church’s inaction during the Halocaust. Her reasons: JP was not empowered to apologise for the decisions of past popes, and that by apologising he was bringing the church into disrepute by drawing attention to the original failure.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
[…] Hey! Have you donated to the Shannon Malloy Fund? […]
May 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Troy: I wish I had seen your comment earlier. You lose that bet.
Frank: There is a wonderful scene in M*A*S*H, when BJ is trying to help a Korean family that has been hit hard by the war. Hawkeye chastises him, saying "You can’t save the world!" BJ replies, "Nope. Just one little corner of it."
larzluv: Nope. I laughed out loud when the Wells Fargo person read that number to me.
And to everyone else who says I didn’t need to apologize… you’re wrong. I did. The content of what I said was accurate, but I shouldn’t have said it the way I did. It’s just that simple. There are people whose feelings I don’t mind hurting because they essentially ask for it; they’re guilty of some sort of willful act (think Ken Hamm, think George Deutsch, think Bart Sibrel). I call those like I see ‘em. But Shannon didn’t deserve the snark, and so I apologized. That’s it. And hey, here’s a chance to do some actual good.
I can’t save the world, but I can damn well try. I know I can save my corner of it, but there are a lot of corners, and if no one tries, nothing will ever get done.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Ken G says: if that is indeed what self-styled skeptics actually did, then you would be right-it would not be a belief system. But that is not what they do.
What do you mean “that is not what they do”? Have you studied ALL skeptics to arrive at your conclusion??
Your stereotypical comment is not relevant to this discussion.
May 18th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
The Bad Astronomer says: And to everyone else who says that i didn’t need to apologize… you’re wrong, I did.
WOW!! Was it your intention to make that sound so “judgemental”??
What’s wrong with the expression of personal opinions?
May 18th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
autumn,
Sadly yes, I do feel contempt for complete strangers on the basis of a few words in the comments. Words have great weight.
Just as I feel contempt for the Governor that I know only from his quote ‘I hope to be the first person in my state to legaly kill a wolf!’.
I feel contempt for the faceless swine that thought up the Nestle babymilk scam.
Many things cause the bile to rise, mainly demonstrated lack of concern for other people. In this case I feel that BA demonstrated greatheartedness and humility far in excess of what I could in the same circumstance, and that criticising him for it was small-minded in the extreme.
PLEASE NOTE: I DO NOT CLASS THOSE WHO STATED THAT THEY FELT BA HAD NOTHING TO APLOGISE FOR AS CRITICISING HIM!
May 18th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
RAF, what is it about BA’s apology that offends you so much?
May 18th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
RE-READ my post, I said I was disappointed…
May 18th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Disappointed: felt sad because you expected better.
I would class telling someone that you are disappointed by something they do as an act of censure.
In fact a very skillfully delivered act of censure.
Your suggestion of a judgmental tone in BA’s last post also suggests that you are on the defensive.
Finally, there is nothing wrong with stating your opinion.
When someone else questions that opinion and you defend it, then we have a discussion.
May 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
There -are- many skeptics who are condescending, arrogant, and/or give off an air of superiority. Dr. Plait’s never struck -me- as one, however.
Bewildered. Aghast. Unable to fathom what others were “thinking” at the time. But never “superior”.
At least not in the “you can -never- think as well as I can”. At worst, more like “why don’t you THINK as well as **you** CAN!?!?”
And “callous” or “cold”? EXPECIALLY not “callous” -or- “cold”!
But even those who -are- “rude”… that doesn’t negate their point.
Also, there’s an interesting point that just because someone makes a -statement- that another doesn’t -like- doesn’t make the writer/speaker “rude”. “You are wrong.” is a clear statement of (perceived) fact. “You’re wrong, you stupid git!” is almost certainly meant to be rude.
It’s intellectually dishonest to disregard the message due to the messenger.
Unless, of course, one is simply not up to the task of discerning between the two. And/or hasn’t the patience, and/or mentally clarity and/or ability to actually make out the message.
The tragedy is there are those who think the above sentence is “condescending”…
In the immortal words of Pooh: “Oh, bother!”
May 18th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Josh (and others like him):
“Man, this is why I don’t hang out with the skeptics crowd. […B]ut at what point do you get the right to be condescending and pretentious? Our message would be heard much more clearly if it were spoken with compassion and understanding.”
[1] Could you (or anybody else) explain to -me- what the OP had as “condescending” (”to descend to a less formal or dignified level; to waive the privileges of rank” or “to assume an air of superiority”) and/or “pretentious” (”making usually unjustified or excessive claims; expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature” or “making demands on one’s skill, ability, or means”)? Quote directly, and explain it to me in small words, please. I just -re- looked up both words at webster.com and I must be understanding them differently than you use them… Unless you (and others like you) simply think disagreement is “condescending”. Perhaps having the gall to -say- so…? And/or to point out incorrect statements and back those corrections up with facts? Seriously, folks, I’m confused…
[2] Please (and/or anybody else like-minded), BELL THE CAT! How would **YOU** have made the same points as the OP, but with “compassion” and “understanding”? (Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, but since an argument point that BA raised in the OP was “here’s a real-life example of what I’m talking about”, a scenario where you don’t use the actual account/article is automatically disqualified.)
[3] You further said: “…your holy dais…” Again, please quote directly and explain to me what BA did that was “holier than thou”. (That’s what I take what you wrote as implying; am I wrong?)
[4] “We’re lucky to have you with us still…” Do you KNOW her? If not, aren’t YOU (and those like you) being **pretentious**?
Personally, I find the entire argument disingenuous; you fault BA for pointing out a real person who does what he’s talking about, AND for him pointing out what he’s talking about, but consistently neglect to say how YOU would have done it (more “perfectly”)…
May 18th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Phil, I want to thank you sooooo much for all you have done for me. It was a pleasure speaking with you the other day and would love to meet you face to face when you get to CO.
For the record, doctors have called me a medical miracle, I am not a religious person and use the word without meaning divine intervention.
As for the woman who said something like good, one less Christian, thank you for your apology, as I do not say that I am a Christian and no one deserves to die.
Semantics are a funny thing, aren’t they?
Phil, thanks again for all your support, and to everyone who has donated, thank you so much for your support. I just ask that everyone, religious, skeptic, atheist, scientist, or whatever, send me positive thoughts in my long recovery.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Just for the record- this is not an atheist forum. Christians and people from any faith are invited to contribute. Of course, religion is a topic that leads to heated debates and if you bring religion to the table, be prepared to defend your beliefs.
May 18th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
To RAF: Your point that my reference to “skeptics” does not apply to *all* skeptics is quite illogical. I referred to “skeptics web pages”, and there are a few of those that any reasonable person would agree qualifies under my remark. So let’s play a game– you cite a clearly well known skeptics web site, and I’ll see how long it takes me to find a positivist (i.e., nonskeptical) belief system expressed on that website. I’d go back to Phil’s original blog post but he’s retracted that so it would be inappropriate. As for the relevance to the current discussion, of course it is relevant, people should be aware when they express opinions that they label “skeptical” if they really are skeptical opinions, or if they are simply touting their own beliefs over someone else’s. Isn’t that what this whole thread is about?
May 18th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I’m not sure where you could ever find me saying something based on belief here, and by belief I mean faith without evidence. The whole point of science is making conclusions based on evidence. If there is *any* matter of faith in science, it’s that the Universe behaves according to rules, and that we can figure those rules out. But even then, that’s not faith– we’ve seen it work. We have space probes going to other planets based on Newtonian gravity, we have nuclear power based on quantum mechanics, and I’m typing this on a paragon of the culmination of at least a dozen disciplines of science.
I hear, many times, people saying scientists are using a belief system, but I’ve never seen any evidence of it. Ironic.
May 19th, 2007 at 4:48 am
Just donated.
Thank you for doing that. Soylent green are people.
May 19th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Shannon,
Why do you not have a website? Not only would people be interested in your progress and your thoughts, it would be a positive project for you and may help you financially in some way.
I know there are nasty people out there, but most people would like to see and help you get better in whatever way you can.
I am sure there are many people who could easily set something up for you.
Good luck x
May 19th, 2007 at 6:52 am
I’ve spent far too much time reading everything related to this issue, and I must say that I’m completely dumbfounded. Dr. Plait seems adamant that he did something wrong, but I’m going to have to join the apparent minority of people that think the opposite.
I’m all for compassion, politeness, and all that other good stuff, but this is a bit too much for me. People choose to be offended and we’re not responsible for their emotions, especially when they’re not our intended audience. There’s nothing that makes me get my hackles up more than people telling me how I should feel about a situation, as if there’s a rule book somewhere concerning the correct application of empathy.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:00 am
To clarify the belief issue, I also did not say that scientists use a belief system, because calling them “scientists” make the implication that they are doing science. But scientists are also humans, and they are not doing science 24/7– in fact, they are not doing science when they use their scientific-inspired belief system to make statements about other people’s beliefs, and other people’s lives. It’s all about understanding the line about when one is doing science, and when one is just imposing their belief system on someone else. Not always an easy line to see, but to be true to science we must try to keep track of that line.
May 19th, 2007 at 7:09 am
P.S., let me sum up the point by quoting a post by jack butler on the BAUT forum thread about the proper limitations of science when applied in the domain of individual human trials and triumphs. He was spot on when he said, ” I feel that reverence in the face of mystery is preferable to hubris, and that reverence is not ignorance but respect. “
May 19th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Ken G says: people should be aware when they express opinions that they label “skeptical†if they really are skeptical opinions, or if they are simply touting their own beliefs over someone else’s.>
A subtle, yet obvious (at least to me) attempt to invalidate skepticism as “only” a belief system.
If you like to present evidence that what you say is valid, then by all means present that evidence, but I’m not going to play any “games”.
May 19th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Dulouz,
I’m trying to figure out a website, note I said Trying…LOL Until then Shannon hopefully will be writing a daily blog on Channel 7 news (Denver site) although that isn’t set up yet either.
If anyone would like to go to Shannons MySpace page the link is:
http://www.myspace.com/shimmyshock
~Twyla
May 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
No comment really…just pointing out the obvious.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:22 am
No comment really…just pointing
out the obvious.
May 19th, 2007 at 9:24 am
May 19th, 2007 at 9:27 am
The “obvious” being that someone earlier posted that Shannon was not seeking out the media…
Appearently that is no longer so…
May 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am
RAF…
Shannon is not seeking out the media, the media has sought her out. If you saw the amount of debt up until this point (and continuing) you wouldn’t be so quick to point out the obvious. Shannon still can’t swallow & the surgery is VERY expensive, if media attention can help her to be able to get the GI tube out, so be it! There is also a surgery for her eyes (2nd priority after swallowing) that too is a lot of money. It’s sad to think that someone who was always a hard worker & so independent now has to hope for the kindness of others, but we all do what we have to do to survive, right?
Ask yourself: What would you do in this case?
Shannon may not ever be the