Skeptico

I’ve Been Dug!

Or is it Digged? Not sure what the kids are calling it.

This blog’s been running for some time at about 1,500 visitors a day – occasionally rising to 2,000 or just above. That’s not bad although clearly not in the same league as Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy or even Respectful Insolence. Anyway, last Sunday The Bad Astronomer linked to my How do you prove photography to a blind man? post from two years ago.  That link gave me a boost to just over 3,000 visitors last Sunday – quite a lot for a weekend.

Someone obviously liked the post and it was submitted to StumbleUpon, Reddit and especially Digg. The SiteMeter tells the story:

A lot more people than normal (approximately 110,000 more) were exposed to the skeptical view of psychics and parapsychology. And perhaps some will stay around, read the “Classic Skeptico Posts” linked in the right hand column. I hope they enjoy it. And  thanks for the plug, Phil.

One problem though – as you can see, March is now a very impressive month for visitor numbers compared with previous months. April’s going to have its work cut out to keep up!

 

Children

The post title describes some of The Secret supporters who have been posting comments here. In the just over two years this blog has been going, I have received over 5,000 comments – many critical of my posts and many blunt in their criticism. However, in just six weeks, supporters of The Secret have posted by far the most immature, gratuitously offensive and content-free comments of them all. And that’s saying something.

One example of this was someone signing his or her posts “Kat”. His or her last post (a 1,700 word freestyle rant) was so vitriolic, content-free and uncivil in nature that I deleted it, and instigated comment moderation for a day. (Incidentally, apologies to Tom Foss who took the time to write a detailed rebuttal that was also caught by the moderation system.) Funnily enough, I think it was this commenter who then set up a parody site called Skeptical Lunacy. Funny, but probably not in the way its author intended. Anyone appreciating irony would note that this site – complaining how I would not allow one of his or her comments – does not allow comments. Hilarious. I encourage everyone to visit Skeptical Lunacy. Just keep in mind the phrase “pot-kettle; kettle-pot”. And decide for yourself if “Skeptical Lunacy” provides any rational reason for you to accept what The Secret is selling.

Another example was an Australian twit calling himself “What-The?” His posts degenerated to being purely insulting, while ignoring counterpoints made and questions asked. A week ago I told him to stop posting here. I also informed him that if he did post any more comments I would have to instigate comment moderation, which would be an inconvenience to anyone else who wanted to post a comment here, slowing down the free exchange of ideas. Unfortunately this twit thinks his silly games are more important than everyone else’s freedom to comment, and last night (between about 8 and 10pm Saturday night his time – the middle of Friday night for me), he posted a series of offensive, vulgar and (surprise) content-free posts, including several where he posted with the names of regular commenters here, including me. Obviously I deleted these comments. Unfortunately, because this little child thinks this kind of behavior is funny, and because he will not respond to reasonable requests to grow up, I have had to instigate comment moderation again, and this time it will have to stay on. I apologize for this inconvenience.

The purpose of the comments is to allow further discussion and exploration of issues raised in the original post. If I write a post critical of, say, The Secret, people can read my original post and (if they want to explore the issues more), they can read the comments – some of which will express opposing views. I hope that comments backed by evidence would be taken more seriously by readers, but ultimately people will make up their own mind whether they accept my arguments or not. However, if the comments are a series of content-free insults, and if the language gets too gratuitously vulgar, people will be put off reading them at all and will go away without properly considering the points raised and without making an informed decision. Comments posted with sock-puppet names confuse the issue further. I have been specifically told that some of the excessive vitriol in the comments has driven people away before they can fully consider the issues, and this is obviously something I want to avoid. Right now, this means that comment moderation has to be on.

Perhaps it’s time I wrote some comment guidelines. Not that it would stop the teenage scribblers, but at least it would make things clear to the majority. I don’t really have time now, but I will say that comments will not be disallowed merely because they disagree with my posts. In fact, a brief perusal of the comments will show that dissenting voices are allowed without a moment’s hesitation. However, comments that are purely insulting, full of playground insults, or with gratuitous bad or vulgar language will be deleted. Off topic posts will be deleted. Multiple comments posted with sock puppet names will be deleted. You can still disagree, and disagree vigorously if you wish, but not in such a way that it puts people off reading further. In other words, you can disagree but don’t be a jerk.

And to anyone who comes here truly interested in finding out if The Secret makes any sense or not, I ask you to read the comments to my various Secret posts. Consider that the really immature, vulgar and content-free pro-Secret comments have been deleted. Consider that the pro-Secret comments that remain are the very best the proponents of The Secret have to offer. And make your mind up about whether you think The Secret is backed by any rational evidence or not.

57th Skeptics’ Circle

The 57^th Skeptics' Circle has just been posted at Aardvarchaeology, along with a picture of an aardvark a zebra. Click the link for the best skeptical blogging from the last two weeks. 

Even a Broken Watch

…is right twice a day.

I was amused when following PZ’s link (from his post today) to the creationist Discovery Institute’s Evolution News & Views page. If you plough through all the whining about how evolutionists haven’t answered Michael Egnor’s questions about how Darwinian mechanisms can produce truly novel biological information (except they have), and if you ignore the fact that Egnor hasn’t answered Orac’s questions to Michael Egnor, right at the bottom of the page they have this:

The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site.

Exactly!  For once, something we can all agree on. Although maybe not in quite the way they intended.

 

Edited to add:

Another link today to Doctor Michael Egnor. Money quote:

[Egnor's] a kind of creationist Renaissance man, knowing absolutely nothing about everything.

Classic.

Also, Tara Smith on Doctor Michael Egnor.

Creationist Errors

PZ writes today in response to one typical objection to evolution, namely the claim that:

Mutations have NEVER produced additional DNA structures. NEVER! [Snip] I repeat… not a SINGLE scientist in the entire world has EVER recorded a mutation which produced additional DNA structures or material….

Note the absolute certainty expressed by the creationist – the absolute certainty of the totally ignorant religious believer (some redundancy there, it’s true), in the face of scientists who have spent their whole lives actually, you know, studying this stuff. PZ explains clearly that mutations can produce additional information:

I went to the Flybase database, for instance, and did a search for any duplicated alleles. It came back with a long list of them, and here is just the first one, an allele called abd-AUab-G1, which happens to be a Hox gene in the bithorax complex. Here’s the short description.

[Snip]

You want the full citation so you can go look up the details in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Yeah, we can do that:

Bender and Fitzgerald (2002) Transcription activates repressed domains in the Drosophila bithorax complex. Development 129(21): 4923-4930.

Much more at the link.

Bookmark that link for the next time (and there will be a next time) some creationist fool claims mutations can’t create information and therefore evolution is impossible.

Edited to add:

PZ had a follow up post on this subject today, summarizing even more examples of how evolution produces more information – examples the creationists continue to ignore.

Right Decision Wrong Reason

A French cartoons editor has been acquitted of insulting Muslims by reprinting cartoons of the prophet Muhammad:

A French court has ruled in favour of weekly Charlie Hebdo, rejecting accusations by Islamic groups who said it incited hatred against Muslims.

The cartoons were covered by freedom of expression laws and were not an attack on Islam, but fundamentalists, it said.

The case was seen as an important test for freedom of expression in France.

Except this wasn’t a victory for free speech. According to the article, the editor was acquitted because the cartoons criticized only fundamentalists, not Muslims or Islam in general. So presumably criticizing Islam would still be a crime. The accused editor (perhaps unknowingly), summarized the situation correctly:

… the ruling was a victory for secular French Muslims.

Yes – this was a victory for religious apologists of all stripes. Implicit in the judgment is that it is not OK to make fun of a religion; it is only OK to make fun those who use religion to justify terrorism. If he had been found guilty merely of making fun of Islam he could have faced a maximum fine of nearly 30,000 euros ($40K) and a jail sentence of up to six months. Just for criticizing a religion.

As I’ve written before, religions should be the first thing we are allowed to criticize. Religious beliefs are not generally backed by evidence, and are frequently contradicted by overwhelming evidence and common sense, and yet they expect special privileges, they expect to be accorded a special level of respect they haven't earned.

And don’t think that even this lame acquittal on these narrow grounds (still acquiescing to the need to respect religion), will keep the theocrats happy. Lhaj Thami Breze of the fundamentalist Union of Islamic Organizations of France, one of the groups that brought the suit, said he would appeal the decision. That’s how much these religious nuts respect the free speech and rights of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their invisible sky fairy story as written in their magic book. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

It’s good that the editor was acquitted. It’s a pity the acquittal wasn’t because it’s OK to make fun of religion.

Michael Egnor

Some useful links. See Michael Egnor. Who? for the details.

Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor, Michael Egnor

Still no evidence prayer works

You may have read recently about a new meta analysis that purportedly shows that intercessory prayer works. If you had read my posts on intercessory prayer you might have been surprised by this since other good studies have shown that prayer doesn’t work, and prayer still doesn’t work.

Steven Novella at NeuroLogica Blog explains why this prayer meta analysis is bogus:

But meta-analysis is tricky business. First, it should be pointed out that it does not represent new data – it is just taking a fresh look at old data. It can be useful but only when it is very carefully applied. For example, the studies that are lumped together should have very similar design, they should be looking at the same type of subjects and should use similar outcome measures. The results of a meta-analysis are only meaningful if data from the different studies can be reasonably combined.

Also, a meta-analysis does nothing to address the quality of the studies being looked at. The old adage of “garbage in-garbage out” still applies. If you lump together 10 bad studies, you don’t get one good study, you get a useless meta-analysis. For these reasons meta-analyses have a poor track record of predicting the ultimate outcome of a question, once definitive studies are done, failing over a third of the time.

A meta-analysis is not always the best method for coming to an overall conclusion about an area of research. There are aspects to the pattern of results that are important to consider, and are white-washed in a meta-analysis. For example, what is the trend between study quality and size of the effect? If we see a real tendency for the better studies to have a smaller effect (which we do, in my opinion, in the intercessory prayer literature), that strongly suggests that the effect is not real. By combining these studies, however, these differences are erased. In effect, the good data is diluted in bad data.

More at the link.

Unfortunately, as Novella laments, this study has already produced headlines of the “new study finds prayer works” kind, while the later retractions, as the data is analyzed properly, will get little airtime.

Ironically, Paul Kurtz of the skeptical Center for Inquiry will be undergoing cardiac surgery today. I wish him well, and I won’t be praying for him.

Schrödinger’s Cat

"What have you done to the cat, Erwin? He looks half dead."

- Mrs. Schrödinger.

The above quotation is attributed to Erwin Schrödinger's wife – apparently an early animal rights activist. The rest, as they say, is history.

I was reminded of Schrödinger’s Cat after reading this comment and this comment recently. Each of these commenters enlisted Schrödinger’s Cat to prove some facts woo they were promoting. Unfortunately for them it does no such thing.

First, for those unfamiliar with it, a summary of the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment:

Schrödinger imagined that a cat is locked in a box, along with a radioactive atom that is connected to a vial containing a deadly poison. If the atom decays, it causes the vial to smash and the cat to be killed. When the box is closed we do not know if the atom has decayed or not, which means that [the cat] can be in both the decayed state and the non-decayed state at the same time. Therefore, the cat is both dead and alive at the same time...

Note: the cat is both dead and alive at the same time. The woo’s argument goes: this is really weird and counterintuitive, therefore __________ (insert preferred brand of woo) is real. There are several flaws in this line of reasoning.

First, from this translation of Schrödinger's original "cat paradox paper", we know that Schrödinger was deliberately presenting this dead and alive scenario as a “quite ridiculous” case. In other words, since a cat obviously cannot be both dead and alive at the same time, the extreme version of the Copenhagen interpretation (the version that says consciousness is necessary), must be wrong. This could be because “observation” really means “measurement” (ie the Geiger counter measuring the atomic decay is the “observer”), or because Copenhagen itself is wrong. Either way, it is amusing when woos throw Schrödinger’s Cat into the debate, quite oblivious to the fact that is was designed to show the exact opposite of what they think it shows.

But there is a more fundamental reason Schrödinger’s Cat doesn’t support the woo position.

I Taught I Taw A Puddy Tat

Schrödinger’s Cat is a thought experiment only. Thought experiments can be useful to explain a complex idea, or to get people to question assumptions, but a thought experiment cannot by itself prove or disprove anything. To prove or disprove something, you have to perform a real experiment. Schrödinger’s Cat has never actually been performed as a real experiment, and in my view could never even in principle be performed as a real experiment. The reason should be obvious. Schrödinger’s Cat says the cat is both dead and alive until we look at it. But we cannot tell if the cat is dead or alive until we look at it. It’s Catch-22: to perform Schrödinger’s Cat we’d have to look at the experiment without looking at it. Clearly impossible. So it proves nothing.

Of course, this also means that Schrödinger’s point wasn’t proven either: since we can’t say for sure that the cat isn’t both dead and alive, we can’t say if Copenhagen is right or wrong. The “consciousness is necessary” interpretation of QM is unfalsifiable.

But even if the experiment could be performed, and the dead and alive at the same time position confirmed, that still wouldn’t support the many woo claims made for quantum mechanics. If you want to demonstrate that something is true, you need to show some actual evidence that the thing actually is true. Just because quantum mechanics is weird and counterintuitive yet true, it doesn’t follow that any weird and counterintuitive woo is also true.

Poor Puddy Tat!

56th Skeptics’ Circle

The 56^th Skeptics' Circle has just been posted by Shalini at Scientia Natura. Click the link for the best skeptical blogging from the last two weeks.