Skip to main content

CFI: Halloween Special! Ghosts, Zombies and Vampires! Sat 26th Oct

Centre for Inquiry UK, The Skeptic magazine and Conway Hall present

Halloween Special: Ghosts, Zombies and Vampires!

Chaired and organized by Stephen Law, Heythrop College University of London.

Saturday October 26th, 2013

Conway Hall (Main Hall)
25 Red Lion Square

£10 (£5 students) Free to friends of CFI UK. Tickets here.
10.30am registration. 11am-3.30pm

10.30 Registration
11.00 Deborah Hyde on vampires
12.00 Chris French on ghosts
1.30 Frank Swain on zombies
2.30 Scott Wood on London ghosts
3.30 END

(CFI reserves the right to change the programme due to unforeseen circumstances)

Deborah Hyde: Vampires

"The Vampire has fascinated Western Europe from the early 1700s, but the tradition was a real part of Eastern European lives for a considerable time before that. In the last three centuries, the icon has been taken up by art of all kinds - literature, film and graphics - and it has had a lasting effect on fashion and culture. But what is the authentic story behind tales of the predatory, living dead and can we understand a little more about being human by studying these accounts? We will look at recent attempts to understand the folklore and try to work out how an Eastern European ritual made its way to late nineteenth century New England, USA.

Deborah Hyde writes writes, lectures internationally and appears on broadcast media to discuss superstition, religion and belief in the supernatural. She uses a range of approaches and disciplines from history to psychology to investigate the folklore of the malign and to discover why it is so persistent throughout all human communities & eras. She is currently writing a book ‘Unnatural Predators’. She is also a film industry makeup effects production manager who gets on the wrong side of the camera from time to time"

Chris French: The Psychology of Ghosts and Hauntings

This talk will consider a number of factors that may lead people to claim that they have experienced a ghost even though they may not in fact have done so. Topics covered will include hoaxes, sincere misinterpretation of natural phenomena, hallucinatory experiences and pareidolia (seeing things that are not there), the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, the possible role of complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound, photographic evidence, EVP, and the role of the media.

Professor Chris French is the Head of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is a Distinguished Supporter of the British Humanist Association and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Frank Swain: Zombies

Ever wanted to make your own army of undead servants? Join author Frank Swain as he reveals 300 years of reanimation and mind control experiments. You learn the tricks, techniques and toxins that everyone from clandestine government scientists to crazed basement obsessives have used in their quest to raise the dead and enslave the living.

Frank Swain writes and talks about science. His first book, HOW TO MAKE A ZOMBIE, if out now from Oneworld. Frank has a history of making zines, being a filthy scenester, stage-managing burlesque shows, climbing buildings, harrying his betters, arguing the toss and generally being a force for good.

Scott Wood: Ghosts of London
In London you are never more than ten feet from a ghost story*. Ghosts have been an enduring part of London’s history, folklore and media and it seems that nothing of note can take place in the city without planting new ghosts.
Scott Wood, of the London Fortean Society and author of the forthcoming Urban Legends of London: The Corpse on the Tube examines how ghosts and London ghost stories have changed through time, from early modern revenants on Bankside to the Greenwich spooks that disturbed Lady Gaga. What do we talk about when we talk about ghosts?


Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o

Suggesting a new named fallacy: the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (or David Cameron Fallacy)

Many of us are familiar with the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy (' after this, therefore because of this) - Post Hoc Fallacy for short). It's the fallacy of supposing that, because B occurred after A, A must be the cause of B. For example: My car stopped working after I changed the oil, so changing the oil caused it to stop working. Or:  I wore my red jumper to the exam and I passed, so that jumper is lucky: it caused me to pass. This fallacy is so common, it gets a latin name. However, there's a related common fallacy that I think also deserves a name. I am going to call it the Non Post Hoc Fallacy (' not after of this, therefore not because of this), or, perhaps more memorably, the David Cameron Fallacy. Every now and then someone desperate to ‘prove’ that X is not causally responsible for Y – e.g poverty is not a cause of crime, will commit the following fallacy. They will argue that as X has often occurred without Y following, therefore X was not the