The skeptical dads over at Science-Based Parenting blog and I have teamed up with Elyse from Skepchick and Heidi from She Thought to create a new podcast. But wait, this one has a new twist: it focuses on parenting. Skeptical parenting. Secular, skeptical parenting!

Colin Thornton, who is heading up the effort, partnered with the Foundation Beyond Belief, to create a weekly podcast called Podcast Beyond Belief, which will feature news items and discussions about skepticism and secular humanism that are of interest to parents. Each week we’ll feature a questions submitted by parents like you, and we’ll have answers supplied by experts. Also, each week we’ll feature an interview with a special guest.

In his introductory blog post, Colin said:

Each episode will feature a round-table discussion of the latest parenting science news, in addition to interviews with well-known science advocates and secular humanists. We’ll also have a regular feature called “THE FAQ”, where we’ll forward on your toughest parenting questions to qualified experts and report back their up-to-date science-based answers.

Our first episode includes a discussion with Dale McGowan, the founder of our “parent” organization, Foundation Beyond Belief. You might also remember him as the editor and co-author of Parenting Beyond Belief and Raising Freethinkers. Dale spoke about secular humanism, and how those principles fit with the foundation’s ideals. We expect to have some listeners who may not understand what it means to be a secular humanist. It’ll be nice to have Dale’s explanation (and example) of humanist philosophy on our first episode to provide context for people new to the concept of freethought.

Be sure to also check out our second episode next week when we sit down with John Flansburgh from They Might Be Giants, the duo who created the new children’s album “Here Comes Science“. The interview went in unexpected directions, and before I knew it, Flans was talking about vaccines, Andrew Wakefield and 9/11 conspiracies.

If you have questions for the FAQ – please send them to podcastbeyondbelief@gmail.com. We’ll pick our favorites to send to the experts for their answers.

We’re still in our infancy, but we’re all passionate about the subject matter, and we feel like this is an important effort. We’d like to use this podcast to help inform, educate, and entertain other parents. So, maybe next time you put the baby down for a nap, or put the kids on the bus, or get in your car to go to work, you can give us a listen!

When I was finishing my teaching credential, one entire class hinged on the idea of different learning styles. There was a self assessment we received that allowed us to pinpoint our best learning style of three major ones–auditory, visual, or tactile-kinesthetic. Most of the class identified as visual learners, and the teacher pointed out that most teachers are, in fact, visual learners. That’s why we tend to present information in a visual fashion, and that’s why we fail to reach many of our students. We learned to use movement or flash cards that students could touch for those who learned better in tactile and kinesthetic ways. We learned that students who are auditory learners would often ask more questions and need repetition.

All of this knowledge fundamentally changed the way I approached teaching and my level of patience with students. The only thing that sort of bothered me about the learning styles was seeing how teachers in this particular class I was taking started to pigeon hole themselves, as in, “See, I’m a visual learner, so this other thing just doesn’t make any sense to me.” I thought that those folks were probably just a little too suggestible.

As it turns out, I might have been highly suggestible myself. The entire idea that there are different learning styles has actually never been scientifically demonstrated. I could have sworn it seemed true, but Mommy Myth Busters have just busted it.

We’ve all grown up being told that we learn better in different ways: some by doing, some by seeing, some by hearing… This notion supported by the very real feeling that we do, in fact, absorb information better in some learning environments than in others. Well, the Association for Psychological Science now says that learning styles are all a bunch of hooey. They have reviewed all recognized studies that claim that a “visual learner” or an “auditory learner” exists, and have concluded that those studies “have not used the type of randomized research designs that would make their findings credible.” That being said, it is still entirely possible that “learning styles” actually do exist, but basically what APS has declared is that nobody has ever sufficiently proven it.

Anecdotally, I can say that as a teacher, using different methods to teach not only seemed to work, it just seemed like simple common sense. Of course people learn differently, right? However, as a skeptic, I look back at my whole hearted acceptance of this notion and I’m a tiny bit embarrassed. I mean, okay, it’s understandable that I swallowed the concept, considering I picked it up in a college course taught by an education expert. However, I never asked for evidence that the effectiveness of learning styles had ever been proven. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to second guess the idea, especially because my work experience validated it.

I am constantly running into surprises like this as a skeptic. First organic food, and now learning styles? Is there nothing I can trust because it sounds right?

I thought this study was interesting, and the way the article reports the study is pretty fair:

Whether or not spanking equates with dumber kids is not known, and may never be known. That’s because the only way to truly show cause and effect would be to follow over time two groups of kids, one randomly assigned to get spanked and another who would not get spanked.

Obviously, that sort of study would not be palatable for anyone involved.  So the author of this article did a good job of making it clear that correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causation.  Way to be.  That said, here’s what the study did find: » Continue reading “Study Links Spanking to Lower IQ”

duncan @ five minutes

By Dean Cameron

This past August 1, 2009 at 10:45am, my son, Duncan Huxley Cameron was born.

Not only is he quite a bit bigger now than he is in that photo, his ability to melt me with a look, has increased.

We are raising him as rationally as possible. Obviously, he’ll make his own decisions about how to interact with his world, but we’ll tell the truth as we see it and let it go. There’s plenty of woo out there for him to encounter and deal with on his own, so we don’t need to burden him with more at home. It’s going to be intersting as, even before he was born, people I consider rational were saying really weird and irrational things.

» Continue reading “Guest Dad Post – HAVIN’ MY BABAY”

If you are new to skepticism, or have only been a lurker in skeptical cyberspace up to now, you may be wondering what you can do to become involved in, or even contribute to, the skeptical community. It might seem like skepticism is something you are interested in, but only other people actually participate in. Sure, not all of us can be Genie Scott, Phil Plait, Kylie Sturgess, Joe Nickell, Ben Radford, or Derek and Swoopy,  just to name a few of the world’s skeptical superstars. But, I’m convinced you can easily become involved in, and even contribute to, skepticism. » Continue reading “I’m not a skeptical celebrity, how can I be involved?”

Jen over at the fabulous Skepchicks blog has a new post on a topic dear to our hearts here at Rational Moms:

So here’s the question – what can we do to make skepticism more family-friendly? What suggestions would we have for conference organizers, such as the JREF, when it comes to reaching out to parents and their children? Or, do you think things are fine as they are?

There seems to be three schools of thought by the commenters. Our choices so far:

a. Make cons like TAM family friendly, by including some or all of the following options: provide child care, include workshops and presentations for children, and/or provide workshops for adults on how to be a skeptical parent, or raise skeptical kids.

b. Make a whole new con for families, or one just for kids and teens, like a TAM Jr.

c. Forget the whole thing, there shouldn’t be any kids at skeptical meetings.

So, I’m wondering how our readers feel about this? Your opinion might depend on several factors, such as whether you are a parent, whether your kids are young or grown, and even if you’ve ever been to a conference like TAM before.

I’m leaning between choices a and b. I love the idea of a huge meeting with other skeptics, where I get to meet some of the professionals in the field, make new friends, learn more about skeptical topics I am interested in, and also get to bring my kids and know that they are being cared for, entertained, and are learning about skepticism, critical thinking and science! That’s a dream vacation. Heck, I’d even be willing to help lead some of the activities for the kids!

However, does that mean TAM needs to change? Or would it be better to create a new conference for families, teens, and children?

I personally am all for raising skeptical kids. I want them to learn critical thinking and other skills to help them wade through all the woo-woo there is in the world. I absolutely can do some of this at home, in what I teach them and what I give them to read and to watch. I can also do this by taking them with me to Camp Inquiry. But I think it is time to offer more to our little skeptics.

So, how can we make skeptic’s meetings, and skepticism in general, family and kid friendly?

Input please!

If you are a rational mom, or a skeptical dad, or a critically thinking cousin, etc., you may be wondering how to find other like-minded people in your area. Happily a group called Grassroots Skeptics has created one central place to

make it easier for people to locate skeptical groups and skeptic-themed events happening near them.

Grassroots Skeptics has a website and they are on twitter and Facebook. They have teamed with the Skepchicks to promote their calendar of skeptical happenings. They have advice on how to find a skeptical group, how to start a skeptical group, and how to promote your skeptical group.

What a great idea, why didn’t I think of that?

Check out this article about how homebirth increases the neonatal mortality rate by Amy Tuteur, the Skeptical OB.  I’ve been reading her blog for a while now.  I started with her previous blog, Homebirth Debate.  There is probably something appealing to many folks on Dr. Amy’s, whether you are interested in homebirth, or dead set against homebirth, or just wanting information about homebirth, or really, even if you don’t give a hoot about homebirth but just love to watch people get seriously into it with each other in the comments.  I mean, these folks go at it.  It’s kind of like the Jerry Springer of skeptical blogs.  I can’t get enough. » Continue reading “Fighting–er, I mean debating about homebirth”

The cartoon network is currently testing out three new live action shows. One of the shows is called The Othersiders which is best explained as Teen Ghosthunters and is aimed at kids.

I’ve seen the first episode and some of the promotional material online and my main issues with this show are 1) that it assumes the existence of the paranormal as fact and 2) passes off sloppy thinking, “weird feelings”, and logical fallacies as critical thinking and true investigation.

This show claims to be “skeptical”, “scientific” and to conduct “thorough” investigations but in reality is credulous and obviously pro paranormal. Critical thinking is practically non existent. It wouldn’t bother me so much if they didn’t claim to be skeptical critical thinkers. If kids are watching this as an example of critical thinking they will be misinformed.

They say they do extensive research on the internet to find the most “credible” locations to investigate. KC, the team’s case manager, explains their decision to investigate the Lincoln Heights Jail in Los Angeles on their first episode, “The jail seemed credible because, so much stuff went on in that place there has to be paranormal stuff left over.”

Sam, the web master, explains why they use thermal cameras, “Paranormal energy is heat and our thermal detectors will pick that up.”

In the research they did about the location the kids read that when people entered a particular part of the jail they started to feel claustrophobic and dizzy. When two members of the team enter that part of the jail, surprise surprise, they also start to feel claustrophobic and dizzy. They consider this evidence of the paranormal. There is no mention that they may have fallen prey to the power of suggestion, that there may be a gas leak or that there may be any other explanation.

Check out the show and see what you think. If you, like me are not happy about this sort of stuff being marketed to kids, please write to the Cartoon Network and let them know what you think.  

Because this show is so new and they are still testing is out we can make a difference. 

Rational parents of the world unite!

I thought it would be cool to have a Rational Dad post here every now and then. I asked SkepticDad to do one, and got back to us about the Facebook group he just created for us.

I’d love to do something with a bit more substance in the future when I have more time, but for now, I’ve taken the liberty of creating a Facebook group for us….Here’s the group description that you can publish on your blog if you wish…. » Continue reading “Rational Dad guest post.”