Why statues weep

I have written articles for a range of different magazines and periodicals over the years. Many of the articles were related to software, but by no means all. A long-forgotten article I wrote for UK-based The Skeptic magazine some time back in the 1990s recently resurfaced when I was asked for permission to include it in a ‘best of’ compilation of 21 years of the magazine. Sucker that I am for seeing my name in print, I jumped at the chance.

The article ‘Myths of Secret Powers’ combines my long term interests in martial arts and skepticism and discusses whether the martial arts are able to unlock mystical secret powers unknown to western science  (executive summary: no). I am flattered that my name appears in print alongside many of the great and good in the skeptical movement, including: Richard  Wiseman; Susan Blackmore; Chris French; Ray Hyman and interviews with magician Paul Daniels and writer, broadcaster and ‘national treasure’ Stephen Fry. Other articles in the book cover a wide range of subjects, including:

  • Cryptozoology.
  • False memories.
  • The predictions of Nostradamus.
  • the Turin Shroud.
  • Alien abductions.
  • Alternative medicine.

There is much to interest anyone who thinks there is merit in taking a rational, evidence-based approach to understanding the world we live in. It is certainly a refreshing tonic to the tidal wave of woolly thinking foisted on us by a credulous and lazy media.

You can purchase the book from Philosphy Press or through Amazon.

3 thoughts on “Why statues weep

  1. Doug

    I appreciate trying to look at evidence, but it’s starting to look like we’re just simply constantly wrong as the links below indicate. And I don’t have a citation, but I have a good buddy getting a PhD in archaeology and it’s very sad to hear his stories from the field where some well-known researchers destroy artifacts that don’t fit with their theories.




    Personally, I think we’re in a state of thinking we know a whole lot more than we really do. And this despite all the cool-headed, non-emotional scientific process that we bring to bear. Guess we just need to remain humble and not say “it’s been proven…”.

  2. Andy Brice Post author

    >where some well-known researchers destroy artifacts that don’t fit with their theories.

    scientists are humans, with human failings. But I expect the truth will win out in the end. Certainly I don’t see any better alternative to an evidence-based, scientific approach to discovering the truth.

    >Guess we just need to remain humble and not say “it’s been proven…”.

    Indeed. Science can never really “prove” something to be true, in the same way mathematics can (see Karl Popper’s work on falsifiability). For hundreds of years we thought Newton’s work was the final word on gravitation and then Einstein showed that it wasn’t applicable in all cases.

Comments are closed.