| Subject: Re: Lectures? |
| From: SkeptInq@aol.com |
| Date: 10/12/10, 16:31 |
| To: barriticus@gmail.com |
All ready to go, just need a title.Ed
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Julia Lavarnway <jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net> wrote:
Hi Barry,
Here is the edited version. It still needs a title, though.
Julia
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:26 AM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:---------- Forwarded message ----------Julia,can you edit and send to me and Jon& Ed for posting?Barrty
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
To: SkeptInq@aol.com
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:53:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Lectures?
Here's a corrected version fixing a couple of typos.A few weeks back, the Guardian’s website ran a piece entitled “This is a news website article about a scientific paper,” which begins thusly:
In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.
In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".
If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.
This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist...
The piece continues in the same vein. Of course, it was intended as satire directed at the formulaic and largely counterproductive manner in which science journalism is too often conducted. Unfortunately, it was satire of the dead-on sort that will resonate with anyone familiar with the ubiquitous flaws in the process by which scientific findings are presented to the public in the modern age.
This is not to say that the modern age should take the blame for this problem, as it does for so many others. “Ask not why the old days were better, for that is a foolish question,” as the Bible tells us in an uncharacteristic fit of wisdom. Popular Science released the entirety of its archives earlier this year, and a quick perusal thereof will confirm that the science journalism of the late 19th century was often worse than that of our own age. One article from 1887 concerns itself with alleged differences in brain weight by nationality, which the author and researchers conclude is a result of varying climates; an even more dubious article appearing a few years later proclaims that the myth of the Wandering Jew is based in a “neuropathic compulsion” by which Jews are collectively “possessed by an irresistible inclination to travel.”
In neither of these cases is journalism itself really at fault; as best as can be determined, the authors provided an accurate and well-composed representation of the wacky subject matter in question, which itself would not have raised too many eyebrows among the average scientist of the time. Comparing that age with our own, it would be difficult to argue that science has not progressed tremendously in terms of both the quantity of the data accumulated and the protocols by which that accumulation is now carried out. If we make a similar comparison between the journalism of the late 19th century and that of the early 21st, though, we find that the progress is decidedly mixed.
Clearly it is not the science that constitutes the limiting factor in the quality of science journalism, but rather the journalism. If one examines a copy of Time from the ‘60s and compares it to the most recent edition, the first thing one will notice is a steep decline in thickness; upon flipping through the pages of each, one will notice that the earlier specimen is not only thicker, but includes far more words per page than does its descendant; and upon actually reading the articles on science, one will have trouble making any comparison at all because the latest Time does not have any articles on science although it does have an article on Burger King’s new Pizza Burger which begins with the sentence, “I just ate a pizza made out of hamburgers.”
Of course, Time and its counterparts in the magazine, newspaper and television industries do indeed run science pieces on a fairly regular basis, and many of these are indeed composed and presented in such a way as to have a net positive effect on the understanding of the general public. But to an extent that makes the above parody sadly relevant, the process by which scientific developments are translated from the lab to the page tends to entail the amplification of the insignificant, the de-emphasising of the inconvenient, and a general sacrifice of accuracy in service to the unfortunate pressures inherent to modern media.
There are a number of limiting factors that define the upper limits in terms of the quality of those science articles which find publication, and these may be divided into those which stem from the outlet and those that stem from the writer. The outlet tends to makes demands that are compatible with good scientific journalism (a maximum word limit, quotes from relevant sources) as well as those that are often not compatible (subject matter that is perceived to be of interest to a large portion of the readership, a storyline that may offer more than is warranted). Meanwhile, the writer brings to the table certain limiting factors of his own, including his ability to write cogent and readable articles as well as to track down and accurately convey scientific developments, and his necessity to do these things with sufficient ease and rapidity such that the sum he makes as a result is worth the time and effort invested.
If we seek to improve the state of science journalism, we have the best chance of doing so by influencing the writer, rather than those who run the outlet; the latter will not be convinced to abandon the pursuit of readership and profits in service to mere science, whereas even the most mercenary of freelancers will happily accept any assistance that makes his work easier and more profitable while also making it better. More to the point, there are a great number of writers who are quite mindful of making a positive impact on the public understanding and who would consider any help in doing so to be similarly attractive.
As such, I’d like to announce the launch of the Science Journalism Improvement Program, the first of several efforts being undertaken by the distributed think-tank Project PM since its founding earlier this year. The procedure by which we’ll be operating, which I’ll describe below, is the result of input by a group of participants including Todd Essig, Ph.D, a training and supervising analyst at the William Alanson White Institute and a columnist for Psychology Today who founded an online network for mental health professionals in 1992, which itself gave rise to the first post-graduate psychoanalytic online continuing education course as well as an annual conference on the subject; and Mano Singham, director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve and adjunct professor of physics as well as the author of several books on evolution and philosophy of science, in addition to being a fellow of the American Physical Society and an active blogger.
The process by which this program operates centers around the pairing of freelance writers with scientists and science-based practitioners (such as healthcare professionals or engineers) who will assist their partners by identifying potential story ideas; providing assistance with research; and putting writers in touch with other qualified sources, both for background information and quotations. Participating scientists can expect several benefits: more media attention given to one's own area of expertise; publicity for themselves, their institutions, and their sponsors; and even by-line credit if the level of contribution merits such recognition.
Participating journalists can expect to produce articles and presentations of better quality and higher accuracy than the current norm without losing popular appeal. Hopefully, they will also be able to see more of their work published.
Project PM’s participating media experts, including editors and more established writers, will assist in getting these articles published. If, for example, a freelancer requests assistance placing an article, we’ll help by identifying the best publications with which to get in touch along with contact information for the relevant editors; providing tips on formulating the pitch; and otherwise assist in getting the piece sold.
This process begins by enlisting interested scientists and freelancers, all of whom will be included in our database along with information on their areas of interest and expertise; such information will be used to designate journalist-scientist pairs, each of which will together decide on the particulars of the articles to be produced as well as the specific nature of their partnerships. Aside from facilitating the initial introduction and providing any assistance that a pair might request, Project PM and the administrators of the Science Journalism Improvement Program will otherwise refrain from supervising the working relationship that results, which will be governed by nothing other than mutual respect and a shared intention to improve the degree of scientific knowledge on the part of the general public.
At this early point, we’ve already recruited a handful of prominent freelancers and established scientists to participate in this effort, and the program is now open to applicants of both sorts. If you’re a freelance writer or science-based practitioner and would be interested in working with us, send me a brief e-mail at barriticus@gmail.com and you’ll receive a short questionnaire regarding your background and expertise. If you’re a layman who might be interested in working with other skeptics on activities involving media reform in general, get in touch with us at the same address.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
Barry-Here's my latest column; let me know if this works for you. Also, let me know if you or someone you know might be interested in getting involved in the project described.***A few weeks back, the Guardian’s website ran a piece entitled “This is a news website article about a scientific paper,” which begins thusly:
In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.
In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".
If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.
This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist...
The piece continues in the same vein. Of course, it was intended as satire directed at the formulaic and largely counterproductive manner in which science journalism is too often conducted. Unfortunately, it was satire of the dead-on sort that will resonate with anyone familiar with the ubiquitous flaws in the process by which scientific findings are presented to the public in the modern age.
This is not to say that the modern age should take the blame for this problem, as it does for so many others. “Ask not why the old days were better, for that is a foolish question,” as the Bible tells us in an uncharacteristic fit of wisdom. Popular Science released the entirety of its archives earlier this year, and a quick perusal thereof will confirm that the science journalism of the late 19th century was often worse than that of our own age. One article from 1887 concerns itself with alleged differences in brain weight by nationality, which the author and researchers conclude is a result of varying climates; an even more dubious article appearing a few years later proclaims that the myth of the Wandering Jew is based in a “neuropathic compulsion” by which Jews are collectively “possessed by an irresistible inclination to travel.”
In neither of these cases is journalism itself really at fault; as best as can be determined, the authors provided an accurate and well-composed representation of the wacky subject matter in question, which itself would not have raised too many eyebrows among the average scientist of the time. Comparing that age with our own, it would be difficult to argue that science has not progressed tremendously in terms of both the quantity of the data accumulated and the protocols by which that accumulation is now carried out. If we make a similar comparison between the journalism of the late 19th century and that of the early 21st, though, we find that the progress is decidedly mixed.
Clearly it is not the science that constitutes the limiting factor in the quality of science journalism, but rather the journalism. If one examines a copy of Time from the ‘60s and compares it to the most recent edition, the first thing one will notice is a steep decline in thickness; upon flipping through the pages of each, one will notice that the earlier specimen is not only thicker, but includes far more words per page than does its descendant; and upon actually reading the articles on science, one will have trouble making any comparison at all because the latest Time does not have any articles on science although it does have an article on Burger King’s new Pizza Burger which begins with the sentence, “I just ate a pizza made out of hamburgers.”
Of course, Time and its counterparts in the magazine, newspaper and television industries do indeed run science pieces on a fairly regular basis, and many of these are indeed composed and presented in such a way as to have a net positive effect on the understanding of the general public. But to an extent that makes the above parody sadly relevant, the process by which scientific developments are translated from the lab to the page tends to entail the amplification of the insignificant, the de-emphasising of the inconvenient, and a general sacrifice of accuracy in service to the unfortunate pressures inherent to modern media.
There are a number of limiting factors that define the upper limits in terms of the quality of those science articles which find publication, and these may be divided into those which stem from the outlet and those that stem from the writer. The outlet tends to makes demands that are compatible with good scientific journalism (a maximum word limit, quotes from relevant sources) as well as those that are often not compatible (subject matter that is perceived to be of interest to a large portion of the readership, a storyline that may offer more than is warranted). Meanwhile, the writer brings to the table certain limiting factors of his own, including his ability to write cogent and readable articles as well as to track down and accurately convey scientific developments, and his necessity to do these things with sufficient ease and rapidity such that the sum he makes as a result is worth the time and effort invested.
If we seek to improve the state of science journalism, we have the best chance of doing so by influencing the writer, rather than those who run the outlet; the latter will not be convinced to abandon the pursuit of readership and profits in service to mere science, whereas even the most mercenary of freelancers will happily accept any assistance that makes makes his work easier and more profitable while also making it better. More to the point, there are a great number of writers who are quite mindful of making a positive impact on the public understanding and who would consider any help in doing so to be similarly attractive.
As such, I’d like to announce the launch of the Science Journalism Improvement Program, the first of several efforts being undertaken by the distributed think-tank Project PM since its founding earlier this year. The procedure by which we’ll be operating, which I’ll describe below, is the result of input by a group of participants including Todd Essig, Ph.D, a training and supervising analyst at the William Alanson White Institute and a columnist for Psychology Today who founded an online network for mental health professionals in 1992, which itself gave rise to the first online continuing education course; Robert Luhn, the director of communications for the National Center of Science Education and a former executive at CNET Networks who’s worked with a number of other media outlets over the years; and Mano Singham, director of the University Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education at Case Western Reserve and adjunct professor of physics as well as the author of several books on evolution and philosophy of science, in addition to being a fellow of the American Physical Society and an active blogger.
The process by which this program operates centers around the pairing of freelance writers with scientists and science-based practitioners (such as healthcare professionals or engineers) who will assist their partners by identifying potential story ideas; providing assistance with research; and putting writers in touch with other qualified sources, both for background information and quotations. Participating scientists can expect several benefits: more media attention given to one's own area of expertise; publicity for themselves, their institutions, and their sponsors; and even by-line credit if the level of contribution merits such recognition.
Participating journalists can expect to produce articles and presentations of better quality and higher accuracy than the current norm without losing popular appeal. Hopefully, they will also be able to see more of their work published.
Project PM’s participating media experts, including editors and more established writers, will assist in getting these articles published. If, for example, a freelancer requests assistance placing an article, we’ll help by identifying the best publications with which to get in touch along with contact information for the relevant editors; providing tips on formulating the pitch; and otherwise assist in getting the piece sold.
This process begins by enlisting interested scientists and freelancers, all of whom will be included in our database along with information on their areas of interest and expertise; such information will be used to designate journalist-scientist pairs, each of which will together decide on the particulars of the articles to be produced as well as the specific nature of their partnerships. Aside from facilitating the initial introduction and providing any assistance that a pair might request, Project PM and the administrators of the Science Journalism Improvement Program will otherwise refrain from supervising the working relationship that results, which will be governed by nothing other than mutual respect and a shared intention to improve the degree of scientific knowledge on the part of the general public.
At this early point, we’ve already recruited a handful of prominent freelancers and established scientists to participate in this effort, and the program is now open to applicants of both sorts. If you’re a freelance writer or science-based practitioner and would be interested in working with us, send me a brief e-mail at barriticus@gmail.com and you’ll receive a short questionnaire regarding your background and expertise. If you’re a layman who might be interested in working with other skeptics on activities involving media reform in general, get in touch with us at the same address.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:
I like your title better.BarryIn a message dated 8/20/2010 10:15:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barriticus@gmail.com writes:Sorry for the delay. How about "Skepticism is Best Left to the Skeptics."
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:53 AM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:
Barrett, we are ready to post your column. We need a title - "Is the Internet a Source for Good?" has been recommended - is this ok with you?Barry
From: barriticus@gmail.com
To: SkeptInq@aol.com
Sent: 8/7/2010 11:04:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Lectures?Let me know if this works for next column; otherwise, I can do one on the media's tendency to take prophecy seriously.***
The publication Foreign Policy runs a regular feature entitled “Think Again” in which some or another contributor addresses an issue he deems to be misunderstood by otherwise knowledgeable people. Each section therein deals with some assertion that the author seeks to correct or clarify; the intent is to bring a skeptical eye to widely-held views on matters of global significance, which is a fine thing to attempt when the writer in question is a competent essayist and thinker rather than some other, lesser thing.
In the May/June issue, FP contributing editor Evgeny Morozov takes to “Think Again” in an effort to bring clarity to the general subject of the Internet as it pertains to freedom and representative government. "The Internet has been a Force for Good,” reads the first assertion to be addressed. The answer, Morozov says, is “No," and he begins to explain why the answer is "No" and not "Yes" or "I don't know" by reminding us of the hopes expressed by web enthusiasts back in the early days of connectivity, occasionally in their own words. "The Internet was lauded as the ultimate tool to foster tolerance, destroy nationalism, and transform the planet into one great wired global village," he reminds us.
Something seems to have gone awry, though, and fifteen years later tolerance remains unfostered, nationalism is still in existence, and our planet is only a wired global village to the extent that it can be compared to such a thing. Morozov does cite one actual claim made long ago by the pro-internet crowd, here quoting the 1994 manifesto "A Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age", which, as he notes, promised the advent of "electronic neighborhoods bound together not by geography but by shared interests." This is an odd claim to cite as representative of unfulfilled hopes insomuch as that it appears to have been fulfilled if we take the metaphor "electronic neighborhoods" to mean what it obviously means and the clause "bound together not by geography but by shared interests" to mean what it even more obviously means, and then observe that we do indeed now have such things in the form of online communities made up of people "bound together not by geography but by shared interests," including blogs such as Daily Kos, user-driven discussion sites such as Reddit, and thousands of other such things. If Morozov has a different definition in mind, he has kept it secret from us.
Incidentally, this marks one of the two occasions in the entire article on which Morozov bothers to quote any of the assertions he ascribes to his opponents, and on neither occasion are we treated to anything so bulky as an entire sentence, but then print magazines are subject to space constraints. Limited by his medium, Morozov is forced to continue here by merely summarizing an assertion by Nicholas Negroponte, who "dramatically predicted in 1997 that the Internet would shatter borders between nations and usher in a new era of world peace" or at any rate stated something approximate to that.
Whatever Negroponte said in 1997, it was apparently wrong. “The Internet as we know it has now been around for two decades,” Morozov reminds us, “and it has certainly been transformative... But just as earlier generations were disappointed to see that neither the telegraph nor the radio delivered on the world-changing promises made by their most ardent cheerleaders, we haven't seen an Internet-powered rise in global peace, love, and liberty." I wouldn't know how to measure the degree of global love, much less to what extent one should attribute any change in such a thing to the Internet. This puts me at a disadvantage when dealing with Morozov, who seems to have had a head start on this, and so I will concede the point, even more readily so since he hammers it home by noting that the Internet has facilitated "the increased global commerce in protected species.” Meanwhile, a group of Serbians have been "turning to Facebook to organize against gay rights" while a group of Saudi Arabians are supposed to be setting up some sort of online version of their Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice squad. All in all, "Many of the transnational networks fostered by the Internet arguably worsen - rather than improve - the world as we know it." Why this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Internet has not been a force for good is left unaddressed, but there is, as I pointed out, a full-page picture of a hand holding a mouse on the facing page.
Having accomplished whatever it is that just happened, Morozov moves on to address more specific assertions such as, “Twitter Will Undermine Dictators." This, it turns out, is “Wrong.” “Tweets don’t overthrow governments; people do," Morozov begins, adding that social network sites have proven “both helpful and harmful to activists operating from inside authoritarian regimes." Again, one expects to see Morozov at least attempt to make the case that they have been more harmful than helpful, but he does not even seem to consider this to be a productive line of inquiry; instead, he is busy forgetting what it is that he had set out to prove - that it is "Wrong" to assert that "Twitter Will Undermine Dictators" - and has instead apparently just decided to make the case that Twitter has not managed to actually overthrow any dictators after a few years of existence. "Neither the Iranian nor the Burmese regime has crumbled under the pressure of pixelated photos of human rights abuses circulated on social networking sites,” he points out.
Not only has Twitter failed to take down two regimes, but one of those regimes has attempted to use the service for its own ends. "Indeed, the Iranian authorities have been as eager to take advantage of the Internet as their green-clad opponents. After last year's protests in Tehran, Iranian authorities launched a website that publishes photos from the protests, urging the public to identify the unruly protestors by name." We are not told how effective this turned out to be or why this necessarily cancels out the effectiveness of Twitter in organizing the protests to begin with or how the fact that dictators use websites shows that they are not being undermined by the use of Twitter. The fellow’s talent is being wasted in socio-political commentary when he could be writing mysteries.
“Take the favorite poster child of digital utopians,” Morozov continues, citing a random example to which some digital utopians may occasionally refer. “In early 2008 a Facebook group started by a 33-year-old Columbian engineer culminated in massive protests, with up to 2 million people marching in Bogota’s streets to demonstrate against the brutality of Marxist FARC rebels. (A New York Times article about the protests gushed: ‘Facebook has helped bring public protest to Colombia, a country with no real history of mass demonstrations.’)” We might have been fooled into taking this as a factual assessment of what was going on in Colombia had the New York Times refrained from gushing it, which is a dishonest rhetorical trick and we should be thankful to Morozov for pointing it out to us. “However, when the very same ‘digital revolution’ last September tried to organize a similar march against Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, they floundered.” Facebook, then, cannot always be used to effectively undermine dictators in neighboring countries; pass it on.
“Internet enthusiasts argue that the Web has made organizing easier,” Morozov continues. “But this is only partially true,” which is to say that it is only easier to the extent that it is easier. “Taking full advantage of online organizing requires a well-disciplined movement with clearly defined goals, hierarchies, and operational procedures.” I would retort that such things are necessary in order to take full advantage of anything, and that there is nothing of which anyone has ever taken full advantage, but that nonetheless these imperfect entities do manage to accomplish things, and that, again, Morozov was supposed to be showing that Twitter doesn’t undermine dictators, not that it frees protester organizers from the necessity of goals and procedures.
Our correspondent next dismisses the myth that “Google Defends Internet Freedom,” noting that the company does so “Only when convenient.” I’m not aware of anyone who argues otherwise other than Google’s public relations people, but at any rate Morozov manages to shoot them down.
Next up on the chopping block is the claim that “The Internet Makes Governments More Accountable.” “Not necessarily,” Morozov retorts, noting that “even when the most detailed data get released, it does not always lead to reformed policies,” here citing an example of an occasion on which the Internet did not make a particular government more accountable and thereby refuting the argument that “The Internet Always Makes Every Government More Accountable in Every Way” which no one has ever made. True accountability, he adds, “will require building healthy democratic institutions and effective systems of checks and balances. The Internet can help, but only to an extent.” That all “help” is inherently a matter of “extent” and not entirety does not prevent Morozov from throwing out this redundant qualifier by virtue of its perceived use in minimizing the fact that the Internet can indeed be of help in building or reforming such institutions.
The Internet and the claims made on its behalf merit skeptical scrutiny. Skepticism, though, is more than contrarianism in the face of a given claim, and it is wholly incompatible with the style of argument such as we have seen above, being a haphazard mixture of anecdotal evidence, selective amnesia, non-sequiters, and loaded terminology. When publications "gush" factual assertions and opponents are twice characterized as "cheerleaders" in the space of a single essay, it is not difficult to determine that the essayist in question is seeking shortcuts to persuasion. And when an essayist sets out to debunk an assertion as not only unproven, but entirely wrong, and attempts to do this by the use of anecdotal evidence that is weaker than the contrary anecdotal evidence he seeks to nullify, and anyway shifts from attacking the original assertion to attacking a broader assertion that no one has made, and does all of these things several times in various combinations, we ought not be surprised that the essayist should have chosen to resort to such shortcuts in the first place, and we may even be inclined to allow these things as a handicap if we are the magnanimous sort, which we are not.
The Internet has not proven itself to be some surefire weapon against tyranny or injustice or bad taste, but the same can be said for the written word and, really, everything. But aside from being wrong, arguments to the effect that the last decade has shown the Internet to be a failure as a tool of political change are almost beside the point if our intent is to better understand what the Internet will look like in the future. Had Morozov written a similar essay five years ago, he would have been arguing against the revolutionary efficacy of a landscape that is drastically different from what we see today - one in which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were as yet unknown. Five years from now, new and entirely different tools will be in use, and existing tools will be used in different ways. The Internet will continue in its rapid evolution, the world in turn will be tugged along in the wake of its influence, and the means of human collaboration will continue to multiply just as they have for the last decade and a half - which is to say, orders of magnitude faster than ever before in human history, and in an environment of fast-increasing social complexity. We have barely received a taste of the phenomena with which we and our very dictators will be confronted in the coming years.On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:I started watching this video for a few minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn2UCqL5qyo but it hurt too much.BarryIn a message dated 7/1/2010 12:51:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, barriticus@gmail.com writes:Yeah, apparently everyone's encountered this guy except for me. I really don't mind, as I like crazy people. Google "Time Cube" sometime if you want a real kick.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:29 PM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:
Just read your blog on True/Slant - sorry to see you were Mabused, but welcome to the club. I delete him probably 5-10 times a day, under a variety of names. He is the most persistent crank I've ever come across.I enjoyed the blog and really like the sarcastic tone.Best.Barry KarrCSI & Skeptical Inquirer
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Julia Lavarnway
Assistant Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Permissions & Assistant Editor, Free Inquiry
jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net
716-636-4869 ext. 334 (voice mail only)
Center for Inquiry/Transnational
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, New York 14228
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302
--
Julia Lavarnway
Assistant Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Permissions & Assistant Editor, Free Inquiry
jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net
716-636-4869 ext. 334 (voice mail only)
Center for Inquiry/Transnational
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, New York 14228
--
Ed Beck
Web/Outreach Intern
Center for Inquiry
(716) 636-4869 ext. 423
www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus