Taking aim at the inane

From predictions of moon-made earthquakes to claims the end of the world is nigh, 2011 has had its fair share of hot air. Certainly, the New Zealand Skeptics have plenty of targets, writes Shane Gilchrist.

It is particularly fitting the New Zealand Skeptics' annual conference this weekend is being held in Christchurch.

For its 2011 Bent Spoon Award (for "journalistic gullibility"), the group has cited the media promulgation of Ken Ring's false predictions of an earthquake on March 20, which contributed to legions of people either leaving the already shaken South Island city or stocking up on petrol, water and other disaster supplies.

Building on solid science is the theme for this year's annual conference, which will feature presentations on earthquake science and "non-science", psychics and the controversial use of 1080.

Given 2011 is the International Year of Chemistry, there will also be a discussion on whether an understanding of basic chemistry can help protect people from pseudo-scientific claims and ideas.

"When we're unsure of things, looking for a better understanding of what's happening and why it's happening empowers people," says Skeptics media spokeswoman Vicki Hyde.

On the phone from Christchurch (she lives in Redcliffs, "pretty much on top of the fault-line"), Ms Hyde likens the New Zealand Skeptics to a Consumer's Institute for the mind.

However, whereas the Consumer's Institute might research a range of cars or microwaves, the NZ Skeptics will investigate everything from end-of-the-world predictions to claims about the benefits of alternative health products.

A non-profit incorporated society with a financial membership of 600 (another 2000 receive emails from the group), New Zealand Skeptics was established in 1986, explains Ms Hyde, who hails from a science journalism background and works on a volunteer basis.

"We try to encourage critical thinking, primarily when scientific claims are being made. For instance, we don't comment on politics or political parties, but if you get someone like the Natural Law Party saying we should meditate to reduce our crime rate, we'll ask for evidence to support that," she says.

(The Natural Law Party of New Zealand, formed in 1995, failed to win any seats in Parliament and was removed from the register of official political parties in 2001.)

"The other main things we are concerned about are those areas where people are vulnerable to being misled. It's important we don't let them be taken advantage of. You only have to look at the psychic industry to see very predatorial patterns involving psychological manipulation that would not get past an ethics committee in any university," Ms Hyde says.

"That exploitation of vulnerable people extends to the alternative medicine industry. No-one is more vulnerable than a parent whose child has cancer."

As per its Bent Spoon Award, the group also aims to turn the lens on journalists who fail to ask enough questions.

"The amount of stuff that goes into women's magazines or the press with very little in the way of informed critique ... it is pretty much advertorial," Ms Hyde says.

"We always say you don't have to be foolish to be fooled.

"Often, in the case of the media, we have a high churn rate of stories. So when journalists see something they haven't encountered before, they get excitable. Broadcast media, in particular, don't want to explain things because that takes time."

She also laments a lack of science-based knowledge within the media in general.

"You wouldn't send a reporter out to cover a rugby game if they had no understanding of the offside rules or how much a try was worth. But, time after time, I've seen reporters cover a scientific issue when, clearly, they have no background knowledge.

"In New Zealand, we have never really had science journalism as a specialty. I remember when one of the polytechnics put out a journalism handbook and the nearest thing it had to science was a section on the weather."

In looking for "balance" in an article, a reporter might seek comment from a range of sources.

Yet, in regards to scientific issues, there aren't necessarily two equal and opposite opinions, Ms Hyde emphasises.

"If you are going to make an extraordinary claim, then you have to put up extraordinary proof.

"I often tell people that the way to detect if someone is a bit dodgy is to note if they are making a definitive statement: for example, 'we can cure your cancer', rather than 'we think this will help', which is a much more scientific approach."