Skeptico

Genetically modified cassava

You know how anti-GM organizations like Greenpeace like to say that GM foods don’t help feed the hungry, don’t increase yields, aren’t necessary and so on? It gets a little tiresome. They remind me of how Laura Bush defended the decision to limit embryonic stem cell research because cures from such research were not just “around the corner”. As I think Jon Stewart said at the time – “so that means we shouldn’t start looking?”

Fortunately GM research is producing higher yields. As I learned from Hit & Run, the Ohio State University has modified cassava plants to produce roots over 2½ times the normal size:

The findings could help ease hunger in many countries where people rely heavily on the cassava plant (Manihot esculenta) as a primary food source, said Richard Sayre, the study's lead author and a professor of plant cellular and molecular biology at Ohio State University.

The researchers used a gene from the bacterium E. coli to genetically modify cassava plants. The plants, which were grown in a greenhouse, produced roots that were an average of 2.6 times larger than those produced by regular cassava plants.

“Not only did these plants produce larger roots, but the whole plant was bigger and had more leaves,” Sayre said. Both the roots and leaves of the cassava plant are edible.

Cassava is the primary food source for more than 250 million Africans – about 40 percent of the continent's population. And the plant's starchy tuberous root is a substantial portion of the diet of nearly 600 million people worldwide.

(My bold.)

And a separate study published in the July issue of Plant Biotechnology Journal as reported in SciDev.Net has produced a cassava immune to a devastating virus:

Researchers have used genes from a virus that periodically devastates cassava crops in Africa to create cassava plants that can resist the virus. The finding could save African farmers large economic losses.

African cassava mosaic virus is transmitted to cassava by whiteflies when they feed on the plant. In parts of East and Central Africa, epidemics of the disease can lead to total losses of harvests.

So far, the only way to fight the virus is by using massive doses of insecticide to kill whiteflies. But this can be prohibitively expensive for subsistence farmers and can threaten their health and that of surrounding plants and animals.

(My bold.)

Apparently the virus’ RNA can be inactivated (thus preventing replication of the cell) when an engineered matching RNA strand is made to bind to it.

In tests, when the plants were exposed to small amounts of the virus, the researchers could see no signs of disease, suggesting their theory was verified.

Of course, field experiments will be needed to confirm the effectiveness of this technique, but it seems like a good start.

So, let’s review. Using genetic engineering it appears we may be able to increase the yields of a staple food, in an area where people are hungry, by 2½ times, and we may be able to reduce the need for expensive and unhealthy insecticides. (Admittedly not both in the same actual plant, as yet.) Perhaps we will now stop hearing about how GM does not produce higher yields, and how GM means poor farmers suffer. No? I don’t think so either.

Secretary to the dead

That’s what Allison DuBois claims she is – “I'm a secretary to the dead. I take notes and I pass them on. I'm a bridge”. These mixed metaphors brought to you courtesy of last Monday’s Paula Zahn Now.

Unlike some of her colleagues on CNN, Zahn at least tries to give the skeptical side some airplay, although in an extremely courteous way and with a major concession to the credulous that I’ll cover at the end. But first, let’s have a look at DuBois’ customary claims. From the transcript:

ZAHN: …One of the first cases that DuBois says she worked on, which also became the pilot episode for "Medium," was the abduction of a six-year-old girl in Texas.

DUBOIS: Where she was abducted from, I was taken right to that house.

ZAHN: DuBois says she was contacted by the Tarrant County sheriff's office in conjunction with the Texas rangers. Law enforcement had convicted a man for kidnapping the girl, but had not been able to find the child's remains.

DUBOIS: And they drove me by the car that he had switched into after he had abducted the child… I put there was horseback riding near back stables. And then I put the horses get spooked in the areas of this child's remains. I also kept seeing small planes, so there had to be a landing strip nearby.

ZAHN: DuBois says she also told investigators that the remains of the child would be found within five years of the girl's disappearance. The child's remains were found four years and nine months after her abduction. Authorities say on the side of a horseback riding trail, in an area next to a military air base. DuBois points to these elements, among others as proof she was able to give useful information to the rangers.

Even if all this were true, it seems to me this is pretty underwhelming. If DuBois really was psychic and could see these things, why didn’t she direct law enforcement to the location of the body? By her own account the body was not found based on DuBois’ information, it was found some years later, so what use was DuBois really? And that’s even if her story were true. But as The Two Percent Company found, DuBois’ claim was not true. They asked the Texas Rangers about this claim, and they replied “the Rangers have not used psychics, including Ms. DuBois”.

To Zahn’s credit she does bring this up with DuBois:

But despite DuBois's claims, the Texas rangers deny ever having worked with her.

(on camera): We couldn't find one single person within the Texas rangers who would even admit to having talked with you. They said never happened.

DUBOIS: I know. The last thing they wanted was for it to be made national or world news where they have to answer for it.

ZAHN (voice-over): But a member of the Tarrant County sheriff's office did confirm part of DuBois's story. Sergeant Bobby Adabere (ph) told us that he not only met with DuBois about the case, but that he was put in contact with her through the Texas rangers.

DUBOIS: I wasn't lying I guess is what it tells you.

ZAHN (on camera): But Sergeant Adabere (ph) also downplayed your efforts. He ended up saying that any information you gave him was pretty darn generic and wasn't that helpful.

Also to her credit there was a brief snippet with Joe Nickell, explaining how “psychics” fit their generic guesses to the facts. But why did she have to spoil a reasonable attempt to report on this with integrity, by ending with:

ZAHN: We've got one more thing to add here. We did speak with another well-placed law enforcement official in Phoenix who said DuBois's information has helped on at least a half dozen cases. Her employer, though, wouldn't allow us to identify her, but this is exactly what she told us. "DuBois has been specific enough in details that it seems impossible that she would know this information any other way."

So just because this unnamed person, who can’t be questioned, says she can’t see how DuBois would have known what she remembers DuBois as knowing – just because this one person couldn't figure it out - DuBois must be psychic. The problems with this statement must be obvious. We don’t know:

• If this anonymous person is telling the truth.
• What it is she claims DuBois knew. They could have been generic guesses and there could have been many wrong guesses the woman has forgotten about.
• If she remembers correctly what really happened. Just ask Elizabeth Loftus – memories are unreliable.
• What other explanations there could be for DuBois knowing things that this person is just too credulous or unimaginative to think of. Just look at John Edward’s lame guesses that seem to fool callers on Larry King.
• What other ways DuBois would have of knowing things.

In other words, Zahn went for ratings at the end.  Lame.

How come Randi’s million hasn’t been won?

That’s what I was wondering this morning while reading this article about psychic powers:

More than half of Britons believe in psychic powers such as mind-reading and premonitions, a survey suggests.

Of 1,006 adults polled for Readers Digest Magazine, 43% reported reading others' thoughts or having theirs read.

More than half had had a dream or premonition of an event before it happened and 26% said they had sensed when a loved-one was ill or in trouble.

A fifth said they had seen a ghost and 29% believed near-death experiences were evidence there was an afterlife.

Of those questioned, 43% claimed to have tapped into other people's thoughts or to have had their own minds read by someone else.

Mind power

More than two-thirds said they could sense when someone was looking at them and 62% could tell who was ringing before they picked up the phone.

More than 10% thought they could influence machinery or electronic equipment using their minds.

One in 10 said something bad had happened to another person after they had wished for it to happen.

(My bold.)

With all those people who can tap into the minds of others, sense when someone was looking at them, or influence machinery with just their minds, it’s Amazing! (haha) that Randi still has his million. Think about it: surely at least one of these psychic prodigies would by now have applied for and easily won all that money?

35th Skeptics’ Circle by a guest blogger

This Skeptics’ Circle is a little different this time from the ones you’ve seen before. Readers of this blog on Monday will know that a creationist called Kennesaw Williams has started a new blog with the handle “Skeptico” and the url of http://skeptico.blogspot.com/ He’s even leaving creationist comments on other blogs as Skeptico. Since I posted that link on Monday his blog has received several comments from fellow skeptics (none favorable to him – thanks for the support by the way), and he doesn’t seem to have posted anything on his blog since.

Well, Orac suggested that since this guy so clearly wants to be Skeptico, I should give him the opportunity to be post on the real Skeptico site – so I asked him to guest blog the Skeptics’ Circle this time. The result is below.

Now, I did explain to Mr. Kennesaw that to avoid confusion, he couldn’t call himself “Skeptico” on this blog. He reluctantly agreed, although he didn’t like my original suggestion of Jackass (too rude). He agreed to the more polite Donkey, which is close enough. Remember, Donkey is a creationist, and so his views may seem a little strange to anyone who is used to the regular Skeptics’ Circle. But give him a chance - the actual featured skeptics’ posts are better than ever, I promise you.

Anyway, enough from me. Without further ado I give you Kennesaw Williams, aka Donkey, with the 35^th Skeptics’ Circle.

 

Well thanks Skeptico. I’ll try to live up to the trust you have placed in me.  It was a lot of work reading over 40 posts from skeptical bloggers, but well worth the effort. I’ll just start at the top and work through to the end.

For the first post, I thought I would feature Stew of A Night on the Tiles, who has invented a new form of “woo” (I believe that’s the word) in Palmistry, Numerology, Astrology: Bullshit. It’s the ancient art of Bracchiumism or wrist-reading. You multiply the number of wrist lines by 15 (since the number 15 is sacred), and add that to the number of lines created by the curve of the thumb, to divine the person’s fortune. At first I was outraged by this as Bracchiumism is clearly the work of the Devil, but then Skeptico pointed out that the article is a spoof. I now realize it’s pretty funny – you got me Stew!

Perhaps Stew should consider registering Bracchiumism.com (it’s available) or even wrist-reading.com (ditto). As Skeptico (the real one) wrote in Astrology.Con (not a typo), the owner of Astrology.Com sold her business for $40 million! Astrology may be useless but it’s clearly not entirely worthless.  Skeptico wonders if his www.skeptico.net could be worth millions – I doubt it since my new donkey site is clearly far superior. Dream on Skeptico.

Did I say astrology was useless? Einzige at Die Eigenheit compares Astrology with the investment advice given by a real estate investment “guru” in John Burley's Advice vs. Astrology and finds it’s hard to tell the difference: ie they’re both useless. What a shocker! I knew astrology was nonsense – if astrology was real God would have written about it in The Bible, wouldn’t he? But you’re telling me I can’t trust online investment advice now?

Mark at Good Math, Bad Math (well which is it Mark – good math or bad math? It can’t be both can it?), debunks some Gematria (the ancient Hebrew system of numerology), in Magic 23. (You thought Bracchiumism made no sense – this is worse because it is not a joke! – truly the work of the Devil.) Then in RePEARing Bad Math he explains in words even a simple creationist can understand, what is wrong mathematically-speaking, with the data produced by the Global Consciousness Project coming out of PEAR. Mark, I could have told you that without all the pointed-headed “math” stuff – God doesn’t bother himself with random number generators, now does he?

At least Unsolicited Opinions knows if he’s writing about good math or bad math. Bad math, he says. In Illegal Immigration, the Economy, and Statistics he addresses the claim that economists are "useless" on immigration – specifically, can they correctly calculate the effect of illegal immigration on jobs? A bit over my head, to be honest, but I’m sure a math genius like William Dembski would understand it. Perhaps I’ll email him the link.

The Science Creative Quarterly (silly title because it’s a daily), has an article skeptical of the possibility of space travel: Hollywood Vs. Science: How Far Are We From Interstellar Travel? Hollywood’s version of space travel isn’t real? Say it ain’t so Scotty!

Ben Goldacre at Bad Science has found newspaper stories claiming electromagnetic fields cause illnesses. In Factors that risk being left out of the equation, Ben highlights two things the newspapers left out of their stories, namely the evidence (and by that he means there isn’t any), plus a very crucial nuance that he explains. Then in I have nothing to declare but my cheekiness he explains why living close to a cell phone mast would actually make you safer from EMF. Now that is cheeky! God doesn’t like a smartass, Ben.

In a related story, The Second Sight explains that the current Mobile Phone Towers Cause Cancer scare in Australia couldn’t possibly be down to coincidence, since in the woo world coincidences don’t exist. Quite right – everything happens because God wills it – what’s the matter with you people?

Remember the guy who thinks a comet is going to hit the Earth on May 25^th? That’s today! Put on your tin hats, or alternatively read Phil Plait The Bad Astronomer in Comet what may (groan – make that the Bad Punner – although not as bad as Skeptico!), who explains that it won’t and why there would not be a tsunami even if it did. Then in NASA denies comet will destroy the Earth!, he reports that, well, NASA denies a comet will destroy the Earth. Hey, isn’t that proof of a conspiracy? Of course, I know why you heathens want to debunk end of times predictions – you know that you won’t be one of the selected ones to be taken to Heaven when Jesus returns. Well, if today is the end of times as predicted by Revelations, I’ll be in heaven with Jesus and you won’t, so send your complaints to Mr. Phil-smarty-pants-bad astronomer, not me. (Skeptico just informed me that should be Dr. Phil-smarty-pants-bad astronomer, but I don’t care – he’s still going to hell.)

You’ll also need to talk to The Saga of Runolfr, (“Runolfr”? – what the hell kind of name is that? Were you short of vowels that day or something?), because in The End of the World As We Know It he says pretty much the same as Phil. So you really didn’t add much did you Runolfr?  Wouldn’t your time have been better spent reading your Bible instead?

Talking about conspiracies, Daylight Atheism writes Loose Marbles I: Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - the first of a three-part series debunking "Loose Change", a conspiracy documentary claiming the September 11 terror attacks were planned and carried out by the U.S. government. (Loose change / Loose marbles – now that’s a good pun.) As he says, the film “was characterized by corruptions of logic, appeals to missing or dubious evidence, wild speculation blended with selectively presented fact, and other hallmarks of the irrationality that pervades most conspiratorial thinking”. Standard woo, in other words. Well of course George W. Bush couldn’t have been involved in 9/11 – he’s a Christian.

Halfway There describes the rather strange bowel movement advice he caught watching an infomercial late at night, in the aptly named Garbage in, garbage out! Apparently if your bowel movements are fewer in number than the number of meals you eat, the difference just stacks up inside you every day of your life. Unlikely in my view – we’ve all been perfectly designed by God in His image, and God wouldn’t have made a mistake like that, now would he? Read your Bible next time instead of watching the late night TV.

Respectful Insolence reports that proponents of taking daily vitamins criticized their opponents for ignoring less scientifically rigorous studies, in Too much sciency-ness for the vitamin industry? Of course we all know that alternative medical practitioners want us to consider less scientifically rigorous studies, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard one of them say it out loud. Orac goes on to warn against comparing holocaust denial with evolution denial in Intelligent design activists make hay out of the Larry Darby case. Well for once I agree with one of these pointed-headed science types – Intelligent Design is perfectly good and valid science, while holocaust denial is just wrong. Also, Hitler was an atheist and a Darwinist, so the comparison with Intelligent Design makes no sense at all.

But then Sergey at Holocaust Controversies has to spoil it by taking the opposing view in Evolution denial, Holocaust denial. Same stuff, if you ask me. Sergey argues that, er, evolution denial and holocaust denial are the same stuff if you ask him. Actually no one asked you, did they Sergey? But at least he does goes on to debunk the bogus “challenge” of The National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archeologists, Skeptics and Historians ™ (aptly shortened to NAF CASH - seriously), in Ah, these CODOH "gentlemen"... And NAFCASH. Despite what the self-proclaimed “Skeptics” of NAFCASH claim, Treblinka really was a death camp.

Jim at If it is it doesn't matter casts a skeptical eye on studies that claim to show sexual preference is genetic, in Born gay or misbegotten studies: 1 Ill-fitting Genes. Jim says that the same methodology could just as easily be used to show that there are genetic causes for the differences between Yankee fans and Mets fans. Jim doesn’t tell us if he is a Mets or a Yankee fan, but he does tell us he’s bisexual, so he’ll be going to hell unless he repents. Take Jesus as your personal savior Jim while there’s still time. (Preferably before that comet hits today.)

We Christians, bolstered by the fuss over the Mohammed cartoons, just love telling the rest of you heathens that you must respect our sacred beliefs (Edit by Skeptico – he means “delusions”). The latest hero in the war for values is a Roman Catholic cardinal whose human rights have clearly been violated by The Da Vinci Code! Ophelia at Butterflies and Wheels has the temerity to disagree with him in Threat Threat Threat Bless You. Skeptico tells me Ophelia’s piece pokes some serious fun at the Cardinal’s “ludicrous” attitude. OK, whatever – she’s going to hell with Phil, Sergey and the rest of them so why do I care?

It seems woos get away easily with passing off their delusions on the public. Be Lambic or Green writes in Justice was not done how “psychic surgeon” Alex Orbito had his fraud and possession charges dropped because “there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction”. Psychic surgery is the work of the Devil, for sure. Sadly, knowing that woos sit on juries too, I could easily believe he would get away with it, but his day for judgment will come in the next life, don’t worry. (It could even be today – that comet, remember?)

Polite Dissent looks at the extraordinary claims of Masuru Emoto in Seven Soldiers: Frankenstein #3 and Pseudoscience. Emoto’s claims that water can recognize words taped to water jars have never been tested in blind conditions and have never been replicated. And yet Emoto’s work was featured in that wonderful masterpiece of scientific reporting, “What the Bleep Do We Know!? Surely that film wasn’t nonsense too? (Oh wait, Skeptico says yes it was.)

A key skill of skepticism and critical thinking is to know logical fallacies – don’t employ them yourself, and recognize them in your opponent’s arguments. Bronze Dog at Rockstars' Ramblings is a regular commenter on Skeptico’s blog, tirelessly pointing out the numerous fallacies employed by certain commenters. Here he punctures three more fallacies. First, the accusation that he only argues because he’s bitter and/or jealous: Doggerel #2: "You're Just Jealous!", followed by Doggerel #3: "You're Just a [Insert Evil Organization] Shill!". As Bronze Dog points out, the motives of the arguer have no bearing on whether the argument presented is correct or not. (Technically these are both ad hominem.) Also he writes Doggerel #4: "Closed-minded" and points out it’s not closed minded to reject claims that are not supported by evidence. This Bronze Dog sounds like a real know-all, if you ask me.

Talking of fallacies, Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant points out the numerous Straw Man, Appeal To Consequences and other flawed arguments used in Rabbi Avi Shafran’s rant against atheists, in Reply to a Rabbi's Ignorance. Of course, atheists are evil, but then the Jews killed our Lord Jesus (according to Mel Gibson, and he wouldn’t lie), so I’m 50/50 on this one.

Moderately Insane provides tips in debating woos in How to Argue with Snipers. By snipers I think he means the sort of people who argue with great scientists such as Michael Behe. Thanks for the tips – I might email Michael with the link.

At last I can report on some people who have a good grip on reality and scientific facts. Clark at Unintelligent Design (an oxymoron if there ever was one), in At Least it Wasn't During Rounds..... tells a heart lifting story of two nurses discussing the facts of Noah’s Ark. Of course, Clark spoils it by questioning the whole Ark story. Ridiculous – if there was no Ark, how did the animals survive? Got you there. Anyway, since the actual Ark was discovered in Turkey recently, the flood story has been proven beyond any doubt. I guess Clark will be joining Sergey, Phil and Ophelia.

The mercury-causes-autism crowd rarely lets fact get in the way of their opinions. Not Mercury writes in Low Dose Nonsense about a conference exploring numerous evidence-challenged autism “theories”. (Well, if they’re just “theories” not facts, why should we take any notice of them? I could have saved you a lot of time there.) One by one the papers to be presented at this conference are professionally debunked. Strangely, the autistic child of (one of the presenters) Grandmother/Sex therapist/autism expert/author, Jaquelyn McCandless, is a “non responder” – ie none of the DAN therapies work on her child. Note: the child is to blame, not the DAN therapies. Oh no.

Interverbal writes Doing the Job for Ourselves: Logical Fallacies in Autism – fallacies employed by the mercury-causes-autism crowd numbers 59 to 68! What is it with you skeptics and logical fallacies? 68?

Then Tara Smith at Aetiology (“Aetiology”? Come on – you’re just making up words now), remarks how the news didn’t really publicize recent research that suggests mercury fillings are not dangerous, despite the original scares being well publicized. (So scientists were wrong about mercury fillings were they? When will these “scientists” ever make up their minds?) In Mercury and mythology she speculates that there might be the same lack of coverage in the future when it is shown that mercury is not causing autism. That’s if Jesus doesn’t come back first.

Hot Cup of Joe is skeptical of the claims that life-saving fire-retardant materials are being banned unnecessarily due to over-zealous environmentalists. In Health Facts and Fears: pseudoscience from a pseudo-skeptic? he explains that there actually may be dangers with the materials being discussed, and that there are alternatives anyway. Hey, I don’t care how much flame retardant clothing you wear, nothing is going to protect you from the eternal flames of hell!

ChemJerk (what a rude name!) tells us in More on critical thinking that you can get students interested in critical thinking. He set his students the task of reading and writing a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World, and received positive feedback from some students. Hey, wait until you hear back from all your students ChemJerk – the righteous ones will not be amused about being made to read about demons.

Finally, we get to the best bit – Evolution v. Intelligent Design. Since I got interested in this subject about a month ago, I’ve become quite expert on the subject. For example, I just read Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and dude it’s awesome!  Michael Behe is a real scientist and he totally debunks Darwinism in this book. You see, Behe found out that some things are so irreducibly complex they just couldn’t have evolved like Darwin said, and so he’s proved all those other scientists wrong. Anyway, of all the posts in this Circle I couldn’t wait to read the ones on this subject to debunk them. Here goes.

We start with Thoughts From Kansas. In Gandhi, Galileo, and the millions of people you never heard of he punctures those who quote Gandhi’s “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” line. He points out that many great ideas started out being mocked, but so did many awful ideas. The ones that ultimately won were those that could marshal the necessary evidence and empirical support. I think he means ideas like Intelligent Design. Good point!

Jake at Jaköbische Rants provides insight into what she thinks is the confused thinking of a creationist in I Think I Blew A Fuse. She seems surprised to learn that looking at evidence and then formulating a hypothesis that fits the evidence, is cheating. Well of course it is – real scientists like Michael Behe start with the “facts” (ie The Bible), and then go and find supporting evidence. Duh!

The Uncredible Hallq writes in Why Intelligent Design gets scientists mad that the problem with Intelligent Design is it wants to flush good, quite difficult research down the toilet in favor of hand waving. If you read the post you’ll see I left a comment on his blog, totally destroying everything he wrote. Go read it – it’s great.

The Austringer gives us Another View of Phillip Johnson – a fisking of the ID proponent’s recent interview. Johnson may believe six inconsistent things before breakfast, but we don’t have to follow his example. Of course we don’t – just believe your Bible which is totally consistent.

And Humbug! Online explains some of the logical fallacies employed by the Intelligent Designists in Intelligently Designed Cat Escapes Bag. First, I wanted to congratulate the author for realizing that cats are intelligently designed. After all, whoever saw a dog give birth to a cat? (I love that one.) But I read the post quite carefully and yet I saw no mention of a cat or a bag, so I’m confused.

Rounding up the evolution offerings, Critiques Of Libertarianism presents an Intelligent Design Overview For US Science Teachers – a useful summary.  I left a comment on that blog totally destroying his argument too. These Darwinists are getting really worried now, if you ask me.

Finally, a latecomer to the Skeptics’ Circle (very late – this is from October 05), Polite Company (take note ChemJerk – that is a much nicer blog name), is skeptical of the need for three, four or five bladed razors in Science: Science-y Hygine Breakthroughs! Skeptico wanted me to tell you that reminded him of this Onion article, but I found it to be full of profanities so I wouldn’t click that link if I were you. I guess Skeptico is going to hell too.

Anyway, I’m done and this Skeptics’ Circle is now officially closed. It’s been an experience reading your rather disturbing and warped posts, but I am going to pray for you all. Now handing the blog back to Skeptico.

 

Er, yes thanks Kennesaw, nice review. Different. Quite a marathon too - 34 contributors and 39 posts!

The next Circle will be held in two weeks time, on June 8^th, at The Examining Room of Dr. Charles. Make an appointment to see Dr. Charles in two weeks. Don’t be late.

Doctors for evidence based medicine

A group of leading British doctors have urged the British National Health Service to stop using complementary therapies and to pay only for evidence based medicine. To which I can only add – duh!

The highly qualified health expert Prince Charles, weighs in with the contrary view:

The proper mix of proven complementary, traditional and modern remedies, which emphasises the active participation of the patient, can help to create a powerful healing force in the world."

He added: "Many of today's complementary therapies are rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world.

"Much of this knowledge, often based on oral traditions, is sadly being lost, yet orthodox medicine has so much to learn from it."

Of course, this is nothing but a lame appeal to other ways of knowing. Science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims such as “does this therapy work?”, and figuring out how the universe works. If Prince Charles claims there is a better method, it is up to him to explain that method and justify his claim that it is better – something he has never done.

The doctors criticize a report commissioned by Prince Charles, and specifically mention homeopathy, calling it an "implausible treatment for which over a dozen systematic reviews have failed to produce convincing evidence of effectiveness". Over a dozen? Surely at least 110 studies?  Never mind - the doctors hit exactly the right note with this:

While "medical practice must remain open to new discoveries", it would "be highly irresponsible to embrace any medicine as though it were a matter of principle".

Exactly. Of course the alternistas reply with the usual fallacies:

Dr Peter Fisher, of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, described the letter as an attempt to introduce a form of "medical apartheid" into the NHS.

Oh boy - this is the appeal to emotion fallacy – he's comparing himself to the victims of apartheid. Give me a break.

Terry Cullen, chairman of the British Complementary Medicine Association, said: "It's very frustrating that senior responsible people dismiss complementary medicine for the sole reason that it doesn't have the definitive scientific proof that other drugs have.

First off, for some alternative therapies there is actually pretty definitive scientific proof they don’t work. I’m thinking especially of homeopathy, but acupuncture also springs to mind.

Second, if you don’t reject something based on (a lack of) scientific evidence then on what basis would you reject anything? Without science you are in freefall – you have to accept literally anything. (Bloodletting anyone?)

"There is so much anecdotal evidence that thousands of people gain benefit from using complementary medicines. We shouldn't dismiss that."

Don’t they know anecdotes are not evidence?

The real doctors continue:

"The NHS should not be spending money where the evidence base is much weaker than it is for conventional treatments," he told BBC Breakfast.

He said a business plan for the refurbishment of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital - which cost £20m to set up - did not put any emphasis on evidence.

£20 million and no emphasis on evidence. Right there is the problem. Good work from these doctors. Meanwhile Prince Charles should stick to farming using astrology where he can do less damage.

Get a load of this lame-ass

I just learned that an anti-evolutionist twit has just started a blog with Blogger, with the url of (wait for it) http://skeptico.blogspot.com/ Go on – click the link and see.  He’s even leaving creationist comments on other blogs as Skeptico.

What a lame-ass – can’t even use his own blog name. What does he hope to achieve? To confuse people into thinking I favor intelligent design? To generate extra traffic to his lame site? Clearly, he doesn’t think that rational argument and evidence will be enough to convince people that ID is valid.

If you ever needed evidence the intelligent design argument was in trouble – you have it here. (Not that we really needed any more evidence.)

(Checkout The Real Skeptico.)

Hat tip to Bronze Dog for originally spotting the imitator.

Debate – astrology is science, or not?

Some real science heavyweights are about to debate what is science and what is not:

What is science and what are its boundaries? What is it at the origin of scientific knowledge? What sparks scientific research? What is reason? What is the relationship between reason and faith? What are the agendas that move the two sides in the evolution vs. creation conflict? How much of it is science and how much is politics? What is at stake?

These are some of the questions that Crossroads New York Cultural Center will ask to a panel of distinguished experts…

All well and good, you might think. But get a load of the three “distinguished experts” they have assembled:

Dr. Michael BEHE, professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and a key witness at the Dover Intelligent Design trial, will debate with Dr. Michael HANBY, Associate director of the Institute of Faith and Learning at Baylor University and with Monsignor Lorenzo ALBACETE, theologian, author and columnist.

(My bold.)

So let’s get this straight. Michael Behe, major Intelligent Design proponent and key witness to have ID taught as science, will debate with a director of an institute of credulity and superstition, er I mean faith, and a theologian, over what is science. I wonder what lively debate and disagreements will ensure between these three geniuses. Hardly seems likely there will be much controversy. Although perhaps they will settle once and for all the burning question of whether astrology is science or not. We know Behe thinks it is. I wonder what the other two will say. Can’t wait.

Hat tip to Red State Rabble.

Prehistoric new agers

Couldn’t resist reproducing this:

Hat tip to ReasonOnline. 

Skeptics’ Circle

Next Thursday, Skeptico is hosting the 35^th Skeptics’ Circle. I am looking for your best skeptical blog posts from the previous two weeks. Here are the guidelines for what we are looking for:

Urban legends. Heard a story about a friend-of-a-friend repeated from other friends and want to find out whether or not it’s true? See a hoax you want to warn people about? Have a strange looking picture forwarded to your e-mail? Don’t leave it all to Snopes, do a little digging and see for yourself whether or not it’s true.

The paranormal. Want to prove how silly astrologists, psychics, ghosts, UFOs, or Bigfoots (Bigfeet?) are? You better belive we’ve got a place for you. All I ask is we keep it more scientific-based than snarky, although there’s nothing wrong with some sarcasm to keep it funny.

Quackery. Of all the subjects included in the Circle, this may be the most likely to save someone's life. There is a lot of potentially harmful questionable medical advice out there being pushed faster than researchers can debunk it.

Pseudoscience. You don’t need to be a professor to know something flat-out doesn’t make sense. If you hear a theory that makes everything you learned from your high school laboratory experiments sound wrong, odds are it’s wrong. Intelligent design fits into this category, because it’s less of a political issue than it is an attempt to superimpose beliefs over factsand the political connotations are side-issues at best.

Historical revision. If someone’s promoting a crooked timeline to try to deny or ignore a major event in history or forcing an incorrect view of the past, prove them wrong. Ideological reinterpretations have done too much harm to the world already.

Critical thinking. Posts dealing with the meta-analytical process behind sorting out the reason from the misinformation fit in this catch-all category.

Please email me the direct link to your post(s) by next Wednesday May 24^th, 9.00pm Eastern Standard Time (US) at the latest – but preferably as soon as you have it (so I don’t have to read 20 posts all in one evening). I’ve already received some really good quality posts - send me some more and let's make it a really great Circle.

Astrology.Con

(Not a typo.)

I’m in the wrong business. Catching up with some old emails I came upon this article sent by reader Matthew. A couple of “internet entrepreneurs” (the article’s description, not mine), are suing the buyers of their business for “improper use of [one of the couple’s] name, likeness, persona and credentials” – ie implying she still worked for the company when she had left. Not the sort of thing to interest Skeptico, you might think, except the business they had sold was Astrology.com and they sold it for (wait for it), $40 million! Jeez – there’s money to be made in woo. No wonder they’re not interested in Randi’s poultry paltry one million.

The funniest part of the article was this comment from the plaintiff, astrologer Kelli Fox:

The way my persona is currently misused by iVillage and Astrology.com is obviously misleading innocent consumers…

Well yeah I see her point – that’d be stealing her job. But from what I can tell, iVillage still features, (strangely looking much younger in the picture), Kelli Fox as your iVillage Astrologer.

Funny – you’d have thought she would have seen this coming.