The 10th Skeptics’ Circle

Welcome to the tenth Skeptics’ Circle.

It has been my privilege to receive contributions of the best skeptical blogging of the last two weeks, and it has been awesome to read the variety of posts submitted on different subjects. Some were serious, some funny, all skeptical. And I’ve certainly been grateful for Firefox – I wouldn’t want to attempt this task without tabbed browsing. (At the start I had 32 tabs open – a personal record!)

So here they are. Each post has two links – the first is the general link to the blog, the second to the specific post being presented.

Critical thinking

I have to start with Nickie Goomba, with US Describes Even More Cases Of Koran Mishandling - his hilarious take on the recent “mishandling of the Koran” stories. This post literally made me laugh out loud. Just read and try to keep a straight face (and I love the picture). Nuff said.

Here’s an exercise for you. Chronicles of a Medical Mad House gives us Skeptical Agnostic – a post about a book he was given that “attempts to use a rational scientific argument to prove the existence of God”. (Apparently Skeptico is not the only one whose friends tell him about books he just has to read. It’s the burden of being the skeptic in the group.) The book tries to make the case that it is unreasonable to be an atheist, and Mad House Madman thought he’d post the argument in the hope of getting some counter-arguments. Hum. I think I can spot the flaw in the book’s logic, but I’ll leave it open for you guys. Read the post. If you can see the error(s), post a comment. (I’ll be reading the post later and grading the comments. Just kidding.)

Ron writes the enigmatically titled, Ron’s Blog (however did he choose that blog name?) – “Just whatever random crap I feel like posting”. No crap this time though. In his Trust me, I’m a doctor – of Philosophy, he writes that “most ‘science’ reporters are twits”. I can certainly sympathize with that view: it has been a theme of many of Skeptico’s reviews of science reporting (especially from the BBC). It seems reporters are often more interested in the headline grabbing sensation rather than the often more sober truth in the actual scientific study. Understandable but irritating. Anyway, one thing Skeptico has learned is that if you want the truth you need to read the actual study, not the report of the study.

And to show what he means, Skeptico sneaks one of his own posts into the carnival (an advantage of being the host) - Power cables reduce brain tumor risk. I comment on how the study reported under attention grabbing headline, “Power cables linked to cancer”, actually showed very minimal risk of cancer, and concluded even that small risk might be due to chance. Universal Acid writes a short but to the point piece called Biological and genetic causes, on the conflation of "biological" and "genetic/innate" when discussing the causes of behavior. Here’s a short item from Butterflies and Wheels called First Things, debunking the claim that religion improves social cohesion. She points out that the first question you should ask about religion is whether or not its claims are true or not, before you make claims about its benefits.  And finally The Walloper is also looking for some answers from his readers. In a post entitled Understanding the non-reality based world, he asks why it is that educated, intelligent people can be taken in by arguments full of blatant errors of fact and logic. Again, I have some thoughts on this. Go ahead – post your thoughts to The Walloper blog. (I’ll be checking back later.)

Urban Legends

I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! From Idler Yet, I learn in Things You know That Ain’t So 1: J. Edgar’s Dresses, that J. Edgar Hoover was not a transvestite. Is nothing sacred?
Then Saint Nate in Laws Too Strange To Be True debunks the many strange laws people claim are on the statute books, but aren’t. For example, did you know in Arizona it’s illegal to hunt camels? No? That’s because it isn’t. (So watch out all you Arizonian camels – Nate’s gunning for you. And he hates camels. HATES them.)

The paranormal

The Bad Astronomer sees a ghost – or does he? Can you guess what he really saw in Ghostly Spectacles? (Incidentally, Skeptico is constantly being awakened by bumps in the night, although he is pretty sure the culprit in this case is his cat, not the spirits of deceased insomniacs. DAMN CAT.)

Justin is compiling data on cold readers into what he calls AURA - the 'Archive of mediUm and cold Reader dAta'. He is recording data from all the cold readers featured on Larry King Live (an onerous task to be sure), in an attempt to analyze what they are doing. So far he’s looked at 18 transcripts containing 258 readings. (Watching that much Larry King alone must have been a struggle.)

Quackery

What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. An old joke, but a relevant point highlighted by our anti-quackery bloggers. Confessions of a Quackbuster sounds like the sort of blog that knows a lot about exposing quackery, and sure enough has two items for us today.  The first is a lighthearted look at that old canard The Memory of Water quacks will not forget (haha - had to get that one in). He considers where water from your tap has actually been and speculates on what it might remember. Not for the squeamish! The second is Effectiveness & Evidence: The Cornerstones of Modern Medicine. Here he criticizes the recent bmj “ABC of complementary medicine” that attempts to define sCAM, and that claims “There is a growing body of evidence that certain complementary therapies are effective in certain clinical conditions”. Well, that was news to me too. Blurring the difference between evidence based medicine (EBM – aka medicine), and sCAM, can aid the general acceptance of therapies that don’t work. A comprehensive read.

First time Skeptics’ Circle contributor night nurse Kelly writes in Time to Lean “It's my job to keep you from dying in your sleep”. Well, her article about the practice of Therapeutic Touch (TT), Pardon me whilst I treat my energy field disturbance, should wake you up. I thought TT had been debunked years ago by the nine year old Emily Rosa, but Kelly tells us not only is it still being taught, but nursing staff are required to attend a laboratory seminar on it (plus reflexology, and other pseudoscientific practices), and they are required to know the basics of it for a written exam! Wow! I mean, WOW! (Btw I loved the caution not to perform this procedure on patients with contraindications – ie those "sensitive to energy repatterning". Bwaahahaha.) Anyway it’s good to know not all nurses buy into this nonsense: if I’m sick I want a nurse like Kelly, not some TT quack. (Although TT might give me a good laugh if I wasn’t too sick.)

And The Two Percent Company gives us one of its rants, this time We Repeat: Aromatherapy is Bullshit (hey stop messing around – tell us what you REALLY think). They analyze a comment on their site from someone who claimed to be an atheist biologist and who agrees with most of what the 2% Co. write, but who disagreed with their stance (er, that would be it’s bullshit), on aromatherapy. They take the arguments apart it their comprehensive and typically amusing way. (As an aside, Skeptico remembers that a couple of years ago he was at a party where some girl was trying to persuade him of the benefits of aromatherapy. She said it could cure "anything". Really, said Skeptico (just joking). Can it cure a broken leg? She said yes. Oh well.)

Saint Nate celebrates a 43 year jail sentence handed out to a quack (YES!), and examines various quack claims about “special” water, and the healing properties of gold, in All That Glitters Isn't Good. And I thought the only gold connected with quackery was the money the quacks extract from wallets of the gullible. And with a blog called Anne’s Anti Quackery and Science Blog, you would expect some posts exposing quackery. You would not be disappointed – there are two, both on homeopathy. First in What is the paranormal in homeopathy? (Skeptico says, nothing – it doesn’t work!), she gives six reasons why homeopathic claims are paranormal claims. And in How long will it take to become a (un)qualified homeopath? She tells us it takes no longer than 5 days to become a (un)qualified homeopath in the U.S. Actually I’m surprised it takes that long to train people how to prescribe pure water, but that’s just me.

Pseudoscience - Creation and ID

No More Mr. Nice Guy highlights The Missing Sock Problem – a parody of cretinist (not a typo) so-called arguments against evolution. He points out that people lose socks every week, and that if the earth really is 4.6 billion years old as scientists claim, there should by now be enough socks to form a layer 10 high completely surrounding the earth.  (Hum. I think he’s forgotten about the sock fairies who remove the missing socks nightly. Ha! Good try though.) More shocking news! Thoughts From Kansas in Inspiration considers a quote from Sir Isaac Newton that calls into question the whole basis of Newtonism! He concludes, “Newtonism is in crisis, and our children should be taught the controversy”. Well said! Then in The Postmodern Assault on Science, TFK slaps down an ID waffler philosopher who claims that all ideas are equal. He concludes that in fact, science is the best method we have for determining which ideas are good and which bad. As he says, “some ideas suck”. Yes they do. Orac demonstrates the gentle way to debunk in his Reply to a 14 year old creationist. It is a very thoughtful and non-confrontational (as possible) reply in the “you attract more bees with honey than vinegar” vein. Get em while they’re young, Orac. Good job.

At Pharyngula, PZ examines the strange arguments of Jim Pinkoski in Pinkoski Part 1: Danged know-it-alls. In particular, PZ is astonished (as we all should be) that Pinkoski (is that really his name?) bases a large part of his case on the myth that we only use 10% of our brains. Even PZ’s 14 year old daughter knows that is not true, although I suspect it is possible Pinkoski only uses 10% of his brain. (Btw, checkout the "evolution monument" drawing in the post. Skeptico thinks the third figure from the left appears to be rather well endowed. In any case, he wouldn't like to be the guy on the far right, especially dressed only in what appears to be a miniskirt!)

First time Skeptics’ Circle contributor Naked Writing Dot Com, describes in It helps to go to the source how she tried to take a history professor up on his challenge to donate one hundred dollars to charity if, by the end of ten years anyone can produce an example of evolution in the animal world. (One hundred dollars! What, is this guy a millionaire or something?) Anyway, she decided to email him with some evidence. His reply is pretty mind bending, considering the guy is supposedly a professor. (We also learn from this post that Naked Writing Dot Com watches porn! Is that why she writes naked? Inquiring minds want to know.)

Finally, over at Anti Quackery and Science Blog, Anne reports on the debate between Michael Shermer and Kent Hovind. Anne thinks that no one takes creationism seriously, but then she doesn’t live in the USA.  She points out that the debate between a creationist and an evolutionist is harder on the evolutionists because they have a lot to explain (all that evidence), while ID proponents just have “goddidit”. Goddidit is much easier to explain, of course. It’s not science, it’s nonsense, but it is easy to explain. Got me there.

Pseudoscience - General

Ryan the Rockstar at Rockstar’s Ramblings should be renamed Ryan the Rottweiler for his take no prisoners style of skepticism. Don’t mess with this guy. In his sympathetically entitled A Paranoid Idiot Teaches a Valuable Lesson, he debunks Joseph Skipper’s interpretations of some of NASA’s Mars photos. No, NASA are not keeping secret the truth about ancient civilizations on Mars. Nice try, though.

Be Lambic or Green in Another Clueless Celeb (is there some redundancy there?) slams celebrities for following and publicizing the dangerous cult/scam of Scientology. He advises Katie Holmes to have fun with Tom Cruise but to stay clear of Scientology. I fear they may be mutually exclusive.

From the food economist US Food Policy we have Study: More Milk Means More Weight Gain, a commentary on a Washington Post story that milk makes you gain weight. According to this blogger, even though the article is fairly strongly worded, it's still not as harsh as it should be.

And finally Darrel Plant writes in The Murderous Gene. And Bob, Joe, and Albert about how the Wall Street Journal’s Sharon Begley takes apart David Buss’s rather strange (that’s being kind) ideas about how evolution works. Buss, who apparently is a psychology professor at the University of Texas, Austin, has a theory that men evolved trough natural selection to kill their mates (presumably after they had given birth). The idea is patently absurd, and Begley takes it apart pretty well, but Darrel notes one point she missed, namely that successful evolutionary adaptations are usually shared by the majority of a species. Good point.

Historical revisionism

Finally, followers of the recent Kansas evolution kangaroo trials should be familiar with the excellent coverage of the proceedings from Red State Rabble. Here he offers a slightly different and disturbing aspect of ID in his Little Kansas Nazis. RSR comments on the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Strategy” to demonize science, scientists, and evolution. One way they do this is to brand evolutionists as atheists. (Of course, some are, but some aren’t.) A more insidious way explored in this post is to compare evolutionists, via association with eugenics, to the Nazis. Ridiculous? Of course, but it needs to be called out and RSR certainly exposes the intellectual dishonesty and glaring flaws in the arguments presented. For further reading on this, take a look at the exchanges between Red State Rabble and the author of the attempted evolution-Nazi link in Richard Weikart: Workin’ in a Quote Mine. RSR certainly sticks it to Weikart, ending with:

You also remind me that you’ve read extensively in the primary sources. I would say extensively, but not deeply. As a university professor, you have had the rare privilege of reading, thinking and writing for a living. I think it’s a shame you’ve wasted the opportunity to come to a deeper more rounded understanding of all the factors involved in the rise of Nazi ideology, and allowed yourself to become a mere propagandist instead.

Oh yeah! As an aside, critical thinkers will know that according to Godwin’s Law, during any debate, whoever mentions the Nazis first can be considered to have automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Well that’s it. I hope you enjoyed this Circle. Check the Skeptics’ Circle page for guidelines to posting, and a list of previous circles and contributors. And please look in again in two weeks when the Skeptics’ Circle will be hosted by Anne's Anti-Quackery & Science Blog.

Comments

[Mad House Madman]

Wow, great Circle!

[johnjb]

Very good job with this Circle!
Thanks.

[Ryan]

I concur, A++!

[coturnix]

Great carnival! Thank you.

(BTW, youmade the same mistake I did a couple of months ago - Walloper is a girl!)

[Delta]

Very nice, thanks!

[dave]

why is goomba's post in the skeptics' circle? it just sounds like a pathetic attempt to laugh off the military's torture of random civilians.

the skeptics' circle seems to be degenerating into the "right-wing humor circle." this doesn't increase its credibility with me.

[Skeptico]

It's making fun of religious idiocy. The Koran is just a BOOK.

[mjcsfo]

Great Job Richard!

On the right-wing humor point: considering the current U.S. administration's aversion to or active sabotage of recent scientific thought, it should come as no surprise the right-wing comes off looking like fools when critical reasoning skills are brought to bear on their conclusions.

[Dean W. Austin]

Skeptico wrote:
"It's making fun of religious idiocy. The Koran is just a BOOK."

I have to disagree. The whole point of Goomba's "satire" was to discredit news reports of Koran desecration. It didn't make fun of religion at all. It was right-wing propaganda, pure and simple and had nothing to do with skepticism. It was also not funny in the least.

[Kevin Paine]

I too was surprised that it takes 5 days to become a homeopath in the US. That's 5 days longer than it takes in Australia, where you require no license, education, training or experience to become a homeopath, naturopath, herbalist etc.

[dave]

of course the koran is just a book. so is the bible, etc.

the point is that PEOPLE are being tortured. if you find that laughable, you're morally degenerate. if you think it's not true, you're totally credulous.

[Skeptico]

Dave;

Re: the skeptics' circle seems to be degenerating into the "right-wing humor circle.”

Get some perspective. It was one post out of 30. Even if this is “right wing humor”, 3.3% of the posts hardly makes it the "right-wing humor circle” now does it? No it doesn’t. So don’t be stupid.

Secondly, people are being tortured, but “mishandling the Koran” isn’t torture, is it? No. So I am not laughing at torture, am I? No. Nice straw man though.

Dave and Dean:

To suggest that someone is “mishandling” the Koran presupposes there is a correct way to handle the Koran, which presupposes the Koran is something special – ie the sacred word of the invisible daddy in the sky. It is ridiculous that this is even news, considering what else is going on, and it is only news because of religious idiots who think their book of myths is more important than human life. That is why “mishandling of the Koran” is a valid subject for a Skeptics’ Circle. And subjects can be treated seriously or humorously. And I’ll spell it out for you again, it is making fun of religious idiocy, not of people being tortured.

[Dean W. Austin]

Skeptico,

I am an atheist, and I agree completely that the belief that the Koran or any book can be "holy" and therefore mishandled is ridiculous. However, there are millions of people in this world who do believe so, and they can be driven to commit mass murder by such perceived disrespect to the book they believe is holy. Any cavalier attitude such as yours and Goomba's (and apparently the US military) can have dire consequences. Therefore, news reports of such disrespect, even actions which seem trivial to us secular types, are legitimate. Goomba's piece was ignorant and not funny and had nothing to do with skepticism.

[Skeptico]

You agree completely that the belief that the Koran or any book can be "holy" and therefore mishandled is ridiculous, and yet you think making fun of this ridiculous belief is ignorant and has nothing to do with skepticism. I’m afraid I disagree completely – exposing ridiculous beliefs is exactly what skepticism is about. Sometimes with humor sometimes seriously. If you don’t think it was funny then that is your personal taste. But why do you think this subject is off limits? What do you think skepticism is about? And if there are limits on what we are supposed to cover, where is that limit and why?

[Dean W. Austin]

I never said it was off-limits. I just think that is was out of place in the Skeptic's Circle. Goomba's piece was not ridiculing the belief, it ridiculed the news items as if Koran abuse was trivial and inconsequential. The skepticism he was expressing was whether the news items were legitimate. He wasn't promoting religious skepticism, he was trying to score political points.

[skeptic tank]

The koran piece was hilarious. Just as hilarious as that bullet or bomb that finds a "coaltion" soldier in retaliation for religious desecrations. Even skepticism won't stop that bullet.

Of course, I laugh at all religious beliefs. Which is why I think that "piss christ" was a stunning piece of art.

In a way, I can see the Muslims point. Our office-holders lied and inflamed our own population with fantasies of "weapons of mass destruction". But we cry foul if they use false stories to inflame their own populations.

[Skeptico]

Dean:

Re: I never said it was off-limits. I just think that is was out of place in the Skeptic's Circle.

What’s the difference between “off-limits” and “out of place”?

Re: Goomba's piece was not ridiculing the belief, it ridiculed the news items as if Koran abuse was trivial and inconsequential. The skepticism he was expressing was whether the news items were legitimate. He wasn't promoting religious skepticism, he was trying to score political points.

That’s your opinion, it’s not mine.

[Nickie Goomba]

Thanks for including my post in the last Skeptic's Circle. I am, however, a bit skeptical about the ability of some of my critics' ability to define skepticism.

I am skeptical about the sudden pompous fervor over supposed disrespect shown the Koran.

I am skeptical about what I consider false accusations of mistreatment and torture at Gitmo.

And, yes, my humor is that of the political Right. Why? Because my core beliefs fit well into that camp. I was not aware that Conservative commenters are not allowed the application of scepticism.

Please, feel free to oppose my politics, but please don't attempt to redefine what is clearly my skepticism over claims from the Left.

Respectfully,

Nickie Goomba

[dave]

nickie,

skepticism and willful ignorance are two different things.

[Nickie Goomba]

You are correct, Dave. Make a concerted effort to shake that ignorance.

[Ken]

I agree that a copy of the Koran is just a book, but if it's deliberately 'desicrated' in front of people who are known to consider it 'Holy' with the intention of tormenting them I would find that repugnant. Not because it's the Koran or Holy but because the act was intended to torment. Tormenting people because they're 'bad' doesn't excuse the 'badness' of such tormenting behaviour even if it's popular. What that popularity says about the capacity of people to inflict suffering whilst maintaining a sense of moral superiority would be a good subject for skeptical analysis.
Ken

[Claus Larsen, Editor, SkepticReport.com]

For unknown reasons, Justin has removed all traces of the AURA compilation.

Fortunately, I managed to save a full copy before it was removed. If people want it, contact me at SkepticReport.com.

Not that the AURA compilation is worth much; Justin freely admits that he would rather accept faulty data than no data at all. He also deliberately leaves out data that shows that an admitted coldreader can outperform a psychic. One can wonder why.

If anything, The AURA compilation serves to remind us all how this sort of endeavour should not be carried out.