Tag: Australian Skeptics

Year 12 Psychology Exam Complaints (2003)

The VCE – year 12 – external Psychology Written Examination I was sat on Tuesday, 10 June by thousands of Victorians and contained an embarrassingly bad question about “mind over matter“.

1. Response from Lynne Kelly, Physics Teacher
2. Response from Ken Greatorex, Victorian Skeptics Secretary

Lynne Kelly

12th June 2003
Dear VCAA,
As a physics teacher of long standing, I was given a copy of this semester’s psychology exam by a very embarrassed psychology teacher. I was shocked to read Question 14.
Question 14, Page 19 reads:

Consider the amazing examples of mind over matter that you might have heard about or seen on television. For example, people lying on beds of nails, piercing themselves with spikes or walking on hot coals. How might an altered state of consciousness explain the resistance to pain in these situations?

For many years I have used the distribution of weight over the 1000 or so nails as an example of distributed pressure and a simple calculation by junior secondary students to show that the resultant pressure from each nail is far too low to cause pain. I have lain upon a Bed of Nails and can verify the lack of pain.
For many years I have used the pit of hot coals as an example of the difference between heat and temperature, and the importance of considering heat capacity and transfer in the calculation. My students know you can walk across a pit of hot coals without pain due to physics, not mind over matter – whatever that might be. I have walked across a pit of hot coals and can verify there is no pain involved.
What would well educated physics students do when confronted with Question 14? Will they be disadvantaged in the marking because they have studied physics?
What would poorly educated physics students take home from Question 14 except even worse physics?
The spike piercing bit is also explainable by simple science with no hint of View More Psychology Exam

Hogan, Peter (Ed.), 1992. pub Australian Skeptics Inc.
This small book gives the main arguments used by creationists against evolution (using original creationist material) with concise, readable rebuttals by science educators. Will help non-scientists understand why creation “science” can’t be taken seriously.
This handy little book is available for A$4.00 (including P & H) from Australian Skeptics Inc., Victorian Branch (Contact Details)
Also available electronically on the “Great Skeptics CD” (http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/news/greatcd.htm)

For more information

• Other Victorian Skeptics articles on this topic: Creationism
• Recommended books on creationism
  • http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/creatrefs.htm

(Creationism articles)

The Great Debate: Creation v Evolution

One of the many amazing stories in the Bible is the story of The Great Flood. Before The Great Flood Noah was commanded by his God to build an ark (a large boat) and to collect a pair of all the animals on Earth. The Great Flood wiped out all the other animals, including humans, and those on Noah’s Ark repopulated the Earth after the flood subsided.
Given our present knowledge of evolution, genetics, geology, physics and archeology, few people, even practising Christians, believe the story to be literally true. However there are some people who insist that all the Bible stories are literally true. As well as the story of Noah’s Ark, they also believe that:

• The Earth and all living things on it were created in six 24-hour days.
• This occurred about 10,000 years ago.
• All present day animals are descended from those on Noah’s Ark.
• The theory of evolution is incorrect because it is not consistent with the Bible stories.

These are the fundamental beliefs of Creationism. But why are the religious beliefs of Creationists of concern to scientists? Does it matter if people’s religious beliefs are in disagreement with scientific knowledge? Scientists and science educators are concerned about Creationism because:

• The Creationists dispute the theory of evolution. Evolution is the foundation of biology and has great scientific credibility, so it is important to defend it from the misleading information presented by Creationists.
• Creationists claim to have scientific evidence for their beliefs, but their science is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The scientific community is concerned that non-scientists will be confused by this misinformation.
• Creationists want Creationism to be taught in science classes as an alternative theory to evolution. This is not acceptable to science educators, as it is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.

Darwin and the Theory of Evolution

Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution in 1859. He presented his theory after a five-year journey around the world as the naturalist on a British naval View More Creation v Evolution

Well-meaning or malicious, “clairvoyants” can be cruel to the grieving.
Skeptics sometimes find amusing the bizarre claims of clairvoyants, but there are many instances when their antics add to the trauma and heartache of bereaved people. Human tragedy is a fertile ground for clairvoyants, striking relatives and friends at their most vulnerable. Unthinking clairvoyants who offer unsolicited “visions” that add immeasurably to grief at this time are singularly unfunny.

Family tragedies

Of all human loss, the most difficult for any parent to imagine is the shattering sadness of losing a child. On Australia day 1996, Sarah Spiers, a secretary aged 18, went with friends to a nightclub in the business district of Claremont, a well-to-do suburb halfway between Perth and Fremantle in Western Australia. She knew the area well, having spent her schooldays in an adjoining suburb. Sarah left the club at about 2am and walked to the next street, where phone records show she called a taxi. When the cab arrived she was no sign of her. She has never been seen since.
Initially, police treated her disappearance as a missing person, perhaps a runaway. But her family knew this was not possible. She would never fail to communicate with her loving family, under any circumstances. Sarah had shared a unit with her sister and there was nothing in her background to indicate that she would voluntarily vanish. Her distraught parents searched for Sarah, printing posters and making public pleas for anyone holding her to return her safely.
Just four months later, Jane Rimmer, a 23 year old child care worker who had been to another Claremont nightspot, vanished in the early hours of the morning. Her body was found in bush 40 kilometres south of Perth. Police believed she had been killed within hours of her abduction. Panic set in when 27 year old lawyer Ciara Glennon vanished nine months later from the same strip around midnight. A serial killer was at large, the police said, and would strike again.
All this time Don and Carol Spiers had not View More Murders and Clairvoyants