Videos of the 10:23 event on 5 and 6 February 2011 round the globe can be found here.

Anyhow we proceed and you can find more and more information about the program and venue on the congress web pages. Also, please visit the congress’ Facebook event page where you can indicate if you could participate or not. This is not an official registration and you can change your indication at any time on that page, but it is informative for us. Also it provides an online forum for you to discuss the relevant topics in advance. As you will see from my reasoning below, this would be extremely beneficial for the outcome of the congress. We are still accepting lecture proposals. If you are interested, please visit the Call for Papers page.

It was twenty years ago when the European skeptics organized their first international congress. It was in Bad Tölz in Germany and that gathering was followed by regular symposiums and congresses since then. At the 1994 congress in Oostende (Belgium) participating organizations had formed ECSO, the European Council of Skeptical Organisations to strengthen international cooperation.

This cooperation is more important now than ever. Astrologers, energy machine builders, UFO believers are generally working individually or in small assemblies and they mostly cause damage on an intellectual level. That is a challenge itself for critical thinkers, but nowadays skeptics face quackery and pseudoscience on a much higher level. Unscientific ideas about health care, origin of life and even history appear in organized forms utilizing the advancements of modern science based technology as blogging, twitter, community portals, Youtube etc. They are infiltrating to policy making even on European level, they enter to elementary schools and to science and medical universities.

The organizers of the 13th European Skeptics Congress (Dublin, Ireland) had realized this and added a short workshop session at the end of the congress. There we had the possibility to briefly discuss topics, challenges that we all share, like alternative medicine lobbying in the European Parliament, science teaching etc. No doubt, there was a great interest in those small workshops. We had some very nice ideas, but overall we could not initiate a real campaign to reinforce cooperation among skeptics in Europe. Active skeptics are a scarce resource in each country and challenges became more and more international. This begs for real networking over our countries.

I raised this issue at one of the fringe events on TAM London last year. We all know that there are brilliant forums for skeptics, like podcasts, discussion forums, blogs etc., but they are mostly Americans, which is not in itself a problem, but they mostly cover skeptical issues from an American (mostly US) perspective – perhaps with some news coverage from Britain. These resources are extremely useful and I strongly recommending to everyone to check them, but we badly need some platform where we could discuss our specific problems taking into consideration of the language barriers also. For example EU legislation issues about pseudo-scientific issues are not so much covered in the existing skeptic media. Homeopathy is simply treated by skeptics in the US as a clear and obvious example of pseudoscience meanwhile simplified registration of homeopathic remedies is endorsed in EU recommendations and in many European countries and public financing is either ongoing or close to that in the various countries. Consumer protection and product registration rules in other areas are also driven by EU directives more and more and vendors of dubious products are navigating very successfully between the national and EU level procedures making the life of a skeptic in any given country very difficult.

That is why we should either bring our special topics and requirements into the existing skeptic forums, or – while still working close to them – we should build our own European skeptic media. ECSO president Amardeo Sarma made special efforts toward this goal by setting up a new ECSO web portal with forum, news and – recently – even blog capabilities. But these media will work only if we use them; if we advertise them and if we produce content to them.

During the 14th European Skeptics Congress we will cover these topics as well during workshops. Based on the current plans we will have the following workshops:

• Enforcing cooperation among skeptics in Europe – Should we set up our own platforms, or should we use existing forums? How should we cope with language barriers? How could we utilize, translate each others articles, videos etc. Should we start a podcast specialized on European topics? Should we prepare common statements on specific issues?
• Reacting to anti-evolutionist propaganda – Should we participate on direct debates or not? Should we reflect on claims coming from evolution deniers? How should we react on initiations about “teaching the controversy” in schools? How should we present evolution theory, the concept and the new findings to the public?
• Answering the CAM challenge on a European level – How could we influence policy making about complementer and alternative medicine on the European level? Could we create a general policy recommendation? What are the similarities and differences on CAM regulation and practice in the various countries?

Some lectures are connected to these topics, but we are planning to involve the audience to discuss these issues in a greater depth. During the  next months we are trying to prepare action paper proposals that we could discuss on the congress. If you are interested in any of these topics, please contact us and contribute to this work!

Event: 14th European Skeptics Congress
Place: Budapest, Hungary
Date: 17-19 September 2010
Web: http://congress2010.skeptic.hu/

International skeptic events in Europe since 1989

For more then 20 years skeptic events are organized throughout Europe. Hereby we list mainly those organized by the member organizations of ECSO. Click on the map to see the locations on map.

Year	Date	City	Country	Event
1989	5-7 May	Bad Tölz	Germany	1st European Skeptics Congress
1990		Brussels	Belgium	2nd European Skeptics Congress
1991		Amsterdam	Netherlands	3rd European Skeptics Congress
1992		Saint-Vincent	Italy	4th European Skeptics Congress
1993	29-31 Aug	Keele	UK	5th European Skeptics Congress
1994	23-25 Sep	Oostende	Belgium	6th European Skeptics Congress (ECSO formed)
1995	4-7 May	Rossdorf	Germany	7th European Skeptics Congress
1997	4-7 Sep	La Coruńa	Spain	8th European Skeptics Congress
1998	23-26 Jul	Heidelberg	Germany	2nd World Skeptic Conference
1999	17-19 Sep	Maastricht	Netherlands	9th European Skeptics Congress
2001	7-9 Sep	Prague	Czech Republic	10th European Skeptics Congress
2003	5-7 Sep	London	UK	11th European Skeptics Congress
2004	8-10 Oct	Albano Terme	Italy	5th World Skeptic Conference
2005	13-15 Oct	Brussels	Belgium	12th European Skeptics Congress
2006	9-10 Sep	Alfaz del Pi	Spain	ECSO Symposium
2007	7-9 Sep	Dublin	Ireland	13th European Skeptics Congress
2008	20-21 Sep	Grenoble	France	ECSO Symposium
2009	3-4 Oct	London	UK	The Amazing Meeting (TAM London 2009)
2010	17-19 Sep	Budapest	Hungary	14th European Skeptics Congress
2010	16-17 Oct	London	UK	The Amazing Meeting (TAM London 2010)

Martin Gardner (1914 - 2010)

James Randi posted today his first thoughts on the loss of his long-time friend and conspirator in skepticism, Martin Gardner. Gardner is an enormous loss to all of us: there is probably not a mathematician or scientist in the US over 40 – perhaps even over 35 – who wasn’t influenced by him.

I first heard of Gardner when I was 13 from my 9th and 10th grade math teacher, Nancy Rosenberg. At the time, Gardner was in the middle of his 30-year stint writing the mathematical games column for Scientific American, and she was a huge fan. She taught us to make hexaflexagons and play Nim (which my father and I played for years on restaurant placemats while waiting for food), among other things.

I first learned about paranormal investigation from watching Randi do a lecture/demonstration at Cornell in January, 1982. But what made CSICOP, now CSI a credible organization to me was learning that Gardner (along with Randi and Carl Sagan) was a co-founder. His book Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus was the first skeptical book I read, and the presence of yet another decades-long column of his in Skeptical Inquirer was a major reason I began reading the magazine regularly. Later, of course, I founded my own.

He was still writing, sharp as ever, until very recently, well into his 90s. A great loss.

However, the victory is only a first step. Simon Singh has said that “we need to maintain pressure” and pointed out that we need to support the ongoing campaign for Libel Reform in Britain. This is of central importance for the work of science journalists and popularizers of science from all over the world if we want to be able to speak openly and criticize dubious claims. ECSO has this added the Libel Reform Button to its web sites to underline our support for the campaign, which we call on all to support. With the elections coming up in the UK, now is the right time.

We had to buy a drug named Euphrasia C5. If someone did not know, he should suppose – based on the abbreviation C5 – that this must be a homeopathic remedy, in which the active ingredient is present in 100⁵ – i.e. ten billionth – dilution. That could even work, but based on the veterinarian C9 or C12 would be good as well. In the latest one the original tincture is diluted by 10²⁴ and there are high chances that there is not a single molecule of the original substance present in the solvent. According to the homeopaths the solvent (water or alcohol) will “remember” the substance and it will express the proper effect within my cat.

This is a controversial theory on its own, but interestingly I am not getting Euphrasia C5 in a solvent – i.e. as a liquid –, but in form of small spheres. These are produced somehow in a way that the sugar spheres are splashed with the “remembering” solvent. The liquid will evaporate quite fast, but meanwhile the “information” will be passed on to the sugar and from this point on it is the sugar that will “remember”.

And this is not the entire story! At each treatment I have to dissolve 5 such spheres in half deciliter still mineral water (I guess I shouldn’t remind you that the “memory” goes to the water now) and I have to push a spoonful (for God’s sake, use only plastic spoon, aluminum destroys memory!) of it into the mouth of the cat. Well, in case you did not know, I tell you that this latest operation is so much difficult that the information will be lost for sure: it will either leak out at the side of his mouth, it will be mixed with my blood or he will sneeze the whole information on me…

OK, and what if the cat is not getting better (which is anyhow quite improbable as cats usually recover even if their stupid owners do not worry so much, do not cram them into small boxes and do not take them to those ugly, white dressed humanoids)? Well, it does not mean that Euphrasia C5 is ineffective, as several irregularities might have happened during the treatment.

For example the beast had eaten or drunken something before the treatment or within half an hour after that – and this is strictly forbidden! It is possible that the medicine (or the cat?) got in the vicinity of some radiating stuff (no, not Chernobil, but some microwave oven or a lethal mobile phone), it was stored nearby non-homeopathic remedies (in the pharmacy? No way!) or there were some aromatic substances around.

I decided that I will apply the homeopathic principle for the frequency of the treatment itself, namely I will dose the remedy every 10¹⁰-th days only. Fortunately the veterinarian lady also prescribed tobramycin that had cured my father as well earlier, so most probably Bubble will not perish for it either. I only have to be able to hold him down until we drip it into his eyes.

Unfortunately, the media has been carried away by the loud voices of the proponents of the burial cloth thesis. In contrast to the scientific evidence, with one exception, the proponents appeal to ignorance and vague similarities in addition to finding creative excuses to explain away the scientific evidence. Here are some of the main arguments of Shroud enthusiasts:

Blood on the Shroud. Wrong. Most refer here to the publications of John Heller and Alan Adler and is the only really scientific argument put forward. The problem with this is that the tests that showed positive for blood would also have had positive results for the collagen tempera. The test was thus simply not specific enough for blood. This contrasts with the investigations done by Walter McCrone, which were specific, and positive for tempera, but not for blood.

Palestinian pollen on the Shroud. This goes back to Max Frei, who had also declared the forged Hitler diary to be authentic. The pollen clearly show as fresh under the microscope, and do not show the kind of aging one would expect after 2000 years.

Imprints of Roman coins and Palestinian flowers on the Shroud. Very imaginative. Such pictures compare to patterns we appear to detect in clouds or tapestry and spring from our imagination and tendency to detect patterns even if there is nothing there.

There is evidence of an earlier history of the Shroud, such as the Codex Pray. Pure speculation. None of these stand up to a critical scrutiny and them being earlier appearances of the Shroud can be dismissed. Among the large number of paintings of Christ and the Crucifixion there are bound to be some that show some amount of resemblance. The Codex Pray depiction appears to show a box or coffin with a stiff lid, not a cloth at all.

The Details of the Shroud confirm reports in the Gospels. Some of the details of the crucifixion do coincide with the narration of the Gospels. However, this depends on which part of which Gospel is taken, as much of the details are in contradiction with each other. For example, details on the Shroud do correspond to details of the Gospel of John, but this Gospel does not talk of a single burial cloth, but rather of “strips of linen” (New International Verson of the Bible) or “linen clothes” (King James Version). And one should also consider that an artist of the 14th century would probably have used material available to him, such as the Gospels or other paintings as inspiration for his piece of art.

The Shroud cannot be the work of an Artist. Wrong again. There have been claims for a long time that the Shroud cannot be the work of an medieval artist. However, this has been shown to be wrong a number of times. Using material, such as red ochre, that had been a common pigment since around the 9th century, Walter Sanford and Joe Nickel had created quite similar images in the early 80s. Nickell had used a rubbing technique with red ochre on linen cloth spanned over a bas relief, which was also published in the Skeptical Inquirer (Vol. VI/3, Spring 1982) featuring the Shroud replication on the cover page. Last year, chemist Luigi Garlaschelli (CICAP) created a whole body image of the Shroud. which was artificially aged to show the additional yellowing coloration due to age. Though it will never be possible to have a 100% replica – after all, no one can completely “copy” a van Gogh – these replicas have shown that an artist using techniques and material available to him, could well have produced an original piece of work, such as the Shroud of Turin. It is of course not a forgery , which would require another original to work with, but rather a creative artist’s original of the 14th century. As for the pro-Shroud proponents, none have produced anything even remotely plausible as to how such an image could have formed without human intervention in a burial situation.

The Shroud shows a photographic Negativ, something unknown to medieval artists. The Shroud is not a negative. If it all, it is  a pseudo-negative as one obtains when rubbing the back end of a pencil on paper stretched over a coin. The Shroud image is darker where the hair is, as for a rubbing over a bas relief, but not the negative of a young man’s dark hair, the negative of which should be white or lighter coloured. Being dark in the hair image regions, the Shroud as a real negative would be showing a white or blonde person, both quite unlikely for a person from the Middle East. If it were a real negative, the Shroud should have been light, not dark in the hair regions.

Concluding, even skeptics can admire the Shroud as a piece of art of a creative artist. And the artist himself would have had every right to be proud of his work: It has remained a controversial topic of very high profile for more than 600 years now, keeping plenty of people busy. I wonder what he would have thought of the millions queueing up to watch its exhibition in the 21st century.

Going through litigation, I was told once, is like having cancer. It is a grim, grueling, rollercoaster process that takes over your life and may leave you permanently damaged. In the first gleeful WE-WON! moments following yesterday’s ruling it’s easy to forget that. It’s also easy to forget that this is only one stage in a complex series.

Yesterday’s judgment was the ruling in Singh’s appeal (heard on February 22) against the ruling of Justice David Eady last May, which itself was only a preliminary ruling on the meaning of the passage in dispute, with the dispute itself to be resolved in a later trial. In October Singh won leave to appeal Eady’s ruling; February’s hearing and today’s judgment constituted that appeal and its results. It is now two years since the original article appeared, and the real case is yet to be tried. Are we at the beginning of Jarndyce and Jarndyce or SCO versus Everyone?

The time and costs of all this are why we need libel law reform. English libel cases, as Singh frequently reminds us, cost 144 times as much as similar cases in the rest of the EU.

But the most likely scenario is that Singh will lose more than that million pounds. It’s not just that he will have to pay the costs of both sides if he loses whatever the final round of this case eventually turns out to be (even if he wins the costs awarded will not cover all his expenses). We must also count what businesses call “opportunity costs”.

A couple of weeks ago, Singh resigned from his Guardian column because the libel case is consuming all his time. And, he says, he should have started writing his next book a year ago but can’t develop a proposal and make commitments to publishers because of the uncertainty. These withdrawals are not just his loss; we all lose by not getting to read what he’d write next. At a time when politicians can be confused enough to worry that an island can tip over and capsize, we need our best popular science educators to be working. Today’s adults can wait, perhaps; but I did some of my best science reading as a teenager: The Microbe Hunters; The Double Helix (despite its treatment of Rosalind Franklin); Isaac Asimov’s The Human Body: Its Structure and Operation; and the pre-House true medical detection stories of Berton Roueché. If Singh v BCA takes five years that’s an entire generation of teenagers.

Still, yesterday’s ruling, in which three of the most powerful judicial figures in the land agreed – eloquently! – with what we all thought from the beginning deserves to be celebrated, not least for its respect for scientific evidence,

Some favorite quotes from the judgment, which makes fine reading:

• Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic.

A similar situation, of course, applies to two other recent cases that pitted libel law against the public interest in scientific criticism. First, Swedish academic Francisco Lacerda, who criticized the voice risk analysis principles embedded in lie detector systems (including one bought by the Department of Work and Pensions at a cost of £2.4 million). Second, British cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst is defending charges of libel and slander over comments he made regarding a clinical trial in which he served as a principal investigator. In all three cases, the public interest is suffering. Ensuring that there is a public interest defense is accordingly a key element of the libel law reform campaign’s platform.

• The opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been denounced on the basis of it to compel its author to prove in court what he has asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an Orwellian ministry of truth.

This was in fact the gist of Eady’s ruling: he categorized Singh’s words as fact rather than comment and would have required Singh to defend a meaning his article went on to say explicitly was not what he was saying. We must leave it for someone more English than I am to say whether that is a judicial rebuke.

• We would respectfully adopt what Judge Easterbrook, now Chief Judge of the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, said in a libel a2ction over a scientific controversy, Underwager v Salter: “[Plaintiffs] cannot, by simply filing suit and crying ‘character assassination!’, silence those who hold divergent views, no matter how adverse those views may be to plaintiffs’ interests. Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation.

What they said.

Wendy M. Grossman’s Web site has an extensive archive of her books, articles, and music, and an archive of all the earlier columns in this series.