Welcome again to my series of interviews for this week! I’m very proud to profile Dr Karen Stollznow, the Associate Editor of the Australian Skeptic.
Karen has spent a decade investigating and writing about the paranormal and pseudoscientific, but she still hasn?t seen a ghost. Karen is a researcher for the Script Encoding Initiative through Unicode and UC Berkeley, and has lectured in linguistics at San Francisco State University and the University of New England.
Karen also acts as a consultant linguist for various software companies in Silicon Valley. Born in Sydney, Karen now lives in the San Francisco Bay Area. Travelling throughout the US, Karen finds many bizarre things to investigate!
What would you say was the biggest influence on your choice of career in linguistics?
My brother was previously a prize-winning mathematician, and competing with that was a huge deterrent. Instead, I gravitated towards writing and language. I started out studying English at university and realised that I couldn?t summon interest in iambic pentameter, or analysing poetry; I was interested in analysing language, especially meaning.
There are many misconceptions about linguistics. Linguistics isn?t always about speaking multiple languages, it?s a diverse, multi-disciplinary field that allows the researcher to also dabble in anthropology, psychology, medicine, sociology, computer science and more.
You’ve also been involved as a researcher of the paranormal for quite some time – how did that begin?
My curiosity in the paranormal goes back so far that I recently unearthed some ghost stories I?d written in kindergarten! My interest has mostly been from an anthropological perspective, wondering what do people believe, and why do they believe?
A decade ago I contacted the Australian Skeptics seeking work experience and was recruited as an undercover skeptic. I posed as a patient, to investigate various alternative therapies including iridology, aura reading, naturopathy and homeopathy. I was a sort of skeptical Mata Hari, minus the dancing and prostitution. Many people would call this ?debunking?, but it?s more about investigation, and recounting experiences. I soon started conducting my own investigations into all kinds of strange phenomena.
What has been your most memorable experience as a researcher of paranormal claims?
Must a scientist be a skeptic and vice-versa?
Skeptics certainly don?t need to be scientists, but it?s crucial for scientists to be skeptics. Moving away from the connotations of skeptic for a moment, it?s vital for researchers to question their beliefs, practices, and theories, for honesty and accuracy. It?s important to realise that we can be wrong, we can be fooled, and sometimes we just don?t know.
However, a lack of skepticism in science can lead to pseudoscience. In extreme cases, would-be historians have become historical revisionists, experts have been deceived by hoaxes, and doctors have researched eugenics. But I know a psychologist who visits psychics, and I know science degree qualified people who are religious. It can be difficult to apply skepticism evenly to all areas in your life ? I?ve met people who chuckle over faith healing but then extol the benefits of homeopathy. Learning skepticism is an ongoing process, and a constant struggle against our own upbringing, biases, fears, hopes and agendas.
In your opinion, do skeptical women have different needs and aims to males?
I?d think it irrelevant if someone referred to me as a ?female linguist?, so ?female skeptic? is beside the point too (others might even find this qualification offensive). I?m a skeptic, amongst other things, and happen to be a woman. Overall, gender has very rarely been an issue for me, and never a hindrance. Skeptical needs and aims are really at the level of the individual, not at the gender level necessarily.
Stereotypically, there appear to be more men than women in the ?scene?. In my micro view, that seems to be the case at the conferences and meetings that I?ve attended ? but with an ever decreasing gap. At any rate, I?m not sure that women need skeptical affirmative action. If we categorise by gender, then what about age, ethnicity, nationality, and so on? I don?t think it?s a matter of who is a skeptic, so much as who isn?t a skeptic. Science, skepticism, critical thinking?these all need bums on seats, be they hairy, curvaceous, young, or Australian?
Karen’s reports will feature in the next episode of The TANK Vodcast – you can also check out her websites www.bad-language.com and www.skepbitch.wordpress.com!
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }