Would You Know if Someone Was Drowning?

As skeptics we often look at other people's beliefs and views and comment on those. How often do we look at our own in a critical way? And how often do we test our knowledge to see if what we believe to be true still is?

For instance, can you tell me what a person drowning looks like? And would you hear a person drowning if they were close to you?

If like me, your answer was, "Yes, of course - they'd be splashing about, probably shouting for help and stuff." then you'd be wrong. At least wrong most of the time.

I came across this interesting article last week entitled Drowning Doesn't Look Like Drowning and it was, for me, an eye opener.

You see, when people drown they don't usually shout or scream - the body prioritises breathing over talking. And a drowning person's instinct is to use their arms to press down onto the water's surface to lift their head out of the water to breathe, so they can't wave either. Which means there's usually not much splashing and no shouting for help.

This quote from the article may be particularly worrying for parents (figures are for the USA);

It is the number two cause of accidental death in children, age 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents) – of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In ten percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch them do it, having no idea it is happening (source: CDC).

So why are we so uneducated in what drowning looks like? Is it because we all think we know what drowning looks like?

Television and films are full of people drowning, waving their arms, shouting for help and such. Maybe that is the problem. Apart from a few lifeguards and so forth, we've all been educated in what drowning looks like from tv and film. Splashing and shouting is dramatic. It works for tv. It works for film.

Its just not realistic.


Of course, if someone is shouting and making a lot of noise they may still need help. We just need to be aware when we are near water (and when our children are near or in water) that no noise may be as much an indicator of a problem than a cry for help.


We just need to remember that a our information and knowledge these days comes to us via a large number of sources, from books to tv to the internet. Not all these sources will be factual and spotting the "embellished" stuff is not always easy or even obvious. We assume a lot every day, but every now and then it doesn't hurt to question the mundane things which seem so obvious that they must be true.


Until last week I would have been confident that I could have spotted a person drowning nearby. Now I am not so sure, but now I at least know I have a better chance of spotting someone drowning as I know the correct things to look for.


I hope that now you also do too.

Skeptic Links

• What You’re Doing Is Important Why being a skeptic matters
• Vatican makes attempted ordination of women a grave crime Here's an idea. If a priest ordains a woman, then just move them quietly to another parish and let them do it again, and before you know it the church will be full of women priests.
• Fortune telling in Warren to get harder Psychics in Warren, Michigan now have to be licenced and police checked before they can ply their trade. Now, all that is needed is for them to prove their abilities before getting the licence as well.
• The Blue Brain Blues - Materialist ethics and simulated minds The ethical implications of creating artificial intelligence
• What are the chances Paul the octopus is right? A statistical analysis of the psychic octopus.
• Could "blue holes" offer clues about the biology of extraterrestrials? A uniquely strange environment could show how life could arise on other planets
  

Big Brother Dave : Mad, Sad or Bad?

If you have been following the current series of Big Brother then you will have seen housemate David Vaughn. In the opening show he entered the house dressed as monk, claiming to be 'drunk in the lord' as he laughed with something of a maniacal air. Outside of the goldfish bowl of reality television he is a christian minister from Pontypool who has achieved a certain notoriety by organising rave parties for believers, notably the 'Sloshfest' event of which he has said "We want to see fun coming back into the Church.”

Harmless enough, you might think. He's not all that different from the average nutter with a sandwich board that you might see in the High Street on a Saturday afternoon. However, I think that there are three possibilities to consider for his reasons for appearing on 'Big Brother'.

Firstly, is he mad? You don't have to go far on the internet to find videos of him acting in a very strange way - speaking in tongues, acting as if he were drunk on something stronger than the holy spirit. He has even expounded such far out ideas as UFOs being linked with fallen angels. However, the vetting process for Big Brother contestants is a stringent one. It involves numerous interviews with producers and psychiatrists to evaluate how the contestant will cope with the pressures of twenty four surveillance. Channel 4 and Endemol will be keen to avoid the potential bad publicity of somebody who is mentally unstable being harmed by appearing on the show.

The second possibility is that he is sad. Perhaps he does genuinely believe what he preaches and that by appearing on the show he will make his own modest contribution to spreading the gospel. Maybe he is happy to be ridiculed if he can metaphorically turn the other cheek and demonstrate the love of Jesus to his fellow housemates. In practice though, he has been shown as being rather mean spirited, arguing dogmatically with the others in the house and making his fair share of snide, bitchy and bullying remarks. When he was nominated for eviction he competed fiercely in a challenge and saved his place in the house by passing his nomination on to somebody else, showing himself to be as ruthless a game player as anybody else.

The final possibility is that he is bad. His own website describes his role on the show as a 'Glory Carrier' and his aim seems to be to generate as much media attention for his organisation as he can manage. He has made claims of curing diseases such as cancer, and even said that he could try to make fellow housemate Steve's amputated legs regrow. He has even gone so far as to pretend to be disabled and be pushed around in a wheelchair offering 'blessings from a real monk'. I think his role on the show can best be described as a cynical publicity stunt and at worst as an attempt to attract vulnerable people suffering from diseases into his church with a promise of healing that is not backed up with any evidence.

However, there is a reason for skeptics to keep an eye on the show. New contestant Andrew, a 19 year old student and self confessed maths geek has been seen standing up to Dave on a number of occasions, knocking back his arguments and assertions with the powers of rational debate and honest inquiry.

Who goes ... you decide!

If you can't tweet nothin' nice ...

... then don't tweet nothin' at all.

It seems that not-a-doctor Gillian McKeith has gone a bit mad on Twitter and then tried to delete it all. Fortunately all of her posts have been archived for posterity here ...

Skeptic Haikusday

Secrets of dowsing
No magic required, it's just
Simple gravity

The Friday puzzle
Posed by a Sheffield Skeptic
Baffles and delights

Hypnosis explained
Without recourse to myths of
The unconscious mind

Then how can you be moral?

A common question posed to atheists, agnostics, humanists and others of a secular persuasion is that if you reject the supernatural, how can you be moral. A recent newsletter from the Brights group challenged readers to answer the question in two hundred words or less. Here is my response - anybody else want to have a go?

Morality for me is not a series of rules inscribed on tablets of stone. Rather it can be summarised by the golden rule of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', a simple philosophy that predates all of the major world religions by thousands of years.

It is easy to see the evolutionary benefit of such a rule. Humans are social animals who thrive when living in families and tribes. It allows for babies with larger brains to be cared for when they are vulnerable, and skills and resources to be shared as required. Knowledge can be preserved and passed down through the generations. In such a group everyone will benefit from altruistic behaviour, and conversely everyone will suffer from such selfish actions as theft and murder.

I would argue that moral behaviour is therefore motivated by the common good, rather than the promise of heaven or fear of eternal punishment that is the basis of religious morality. Our human instinct, honed by evolution, is the lodestone for our moral compass. We have inbuilt reason to weigh our actions according to the golden rule and choose our behaviour accordingly.

That is how I can be moral.