Skeptico

Asparagus Tips

A woman in England claims to be an Asparamancer – she tells fortunes using asparagus:

Ms Packington, from Worcester, throws the asparagus spears onto the floor and makes her predictions based on how they land.

She says she stumbled across her asparagus-predicting skills a few years ago by chance, after some stalks fell on the floor and she made a prediction which came true.

As good a method as any other I suppose. Which is to say, totally useless. Half-assed, you might say. As useless as an Astrologer. I doubt it’s the dawning of the age of asparagus. Er, that’s all I got.

Packington shouldn’t be confused with Sylvester Stallone’s mother, Jackie – she tells your fortune by looking at your ass.  Completely different thing.

 

I predict your pee will smell funny.

Homeopathic Drugs found in US Drinking Water

Following recent discoveries that prescription drugs - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones – have been found in drinking water across the U.S., it has just been revealed that another team has found homeopathic drugs in American tap water:

In the course of a five-month inquiry, our teams tested the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas for numerous homeopathic remedies including Arsenicum Album, Belladonna, Kali Carbonicum and Aurum Metallicum. Despite multiple testing scenarios, and despite using the most advanced and sensitive equipment available, we were not able to find even one molecule of the homeopathic remedies in any of the tap water samples we examined. While this would not be a problem with conventional medicines, homeopathic remedies are stronger the more dilute they are. This means that samples of water we tested containing zero molecules of, for example Arsenicum Album, would be Arsenicum Album at the maximum strength possible.  Homeopaths believe this could present real risks to the American public who could be unknowingly consuming many different powerful homeopathic drugs combined in their morning tea or coffee.

How did no molecules of homeopathic drugs manage to get into the drinking supply? The exact reason is unknown, but it is thought that a big homeopathic corporation probably flushed some water down the sink. American waste water treatment plants remove all but trace contaminants from the drinking water supply, but currently they have no way to even recognize drugs at homeopathic dilutions, let alone to not remove the molecules they don’t contain. Even more shockingly, the federal government has not set safety limits for not containing no molecules of homeopathic drugs in drinking water. Only now are people asking, "why not?"

Homeopaths were quick to respond to the reports.  When asked what to do if you suspect your drinking water is contaminated with homeopathic drugs, a leading homeopath responded "whatever you do, don't dilute it, that'll only make things worse".  The Society of Homeopaths - the body responsible for policing homeopathic ethics - was quick to take action against the persons they considered responsible.  They immediately threatened to sue any internet Service Provider who allowed the story to be published. Out of habit, Netcetera told The Quackometer to remove all his homeopathy posts.

Many independent scientists are skeptical that pure water with no molecules of a drug, can cause any harm. Stephan Nouvelle, of the Neoroblogica website, was quoted as saying:

Such homeopathic notions have no basis in reality, and modern scientific investigations of homeopathic remedies, coupled with two centuries of science confirms the common sense idea that dilution weakens potency. The EPA is just trying to frighten the American public with this absurd story about zero molecules being potentized and dangerous.

But Nouvelle was in the minority.

However, it appears a solution may be to hand. A homeopath, writing in The Grauniad, noted:

The EPA seems to think that homeopathic remedies are prepared by diluting substances. They omit the critical component of shaking ('succussion') between serial dilutions. This means that for a homeopathic remedy to be potentized, it has to be shaken by a qualified homeopath who then charges you a lot of money for doing so. Without this shaking and.. er… the money going to the homeopath… it’s just tap water.

The EPA concludes from this that tap water is safe to drink - just as long as you  don’t let a homeopath near it or pay them any money. Which is good advice at any time.

Chicken, Road, Year Three

This Sunday February 3rd will be the third anniversary of this blog, and as with previous years I've revisited the numerous kooks we met in the last year, and thought about how they would answer the age old question: why did the chicken cross the road?  See my post commemorating 2006’s first anniversary, Why did the chicken cross the road?, and the 2007 version, Why did the chicken re-cross the road? for the previous versions. And with no long-winded preamble, I give you 2008’s version of:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Joe Vitale

Because it’s a Law just like gravity.

And if you disagree I’ll delete your comment.

The UK Ministry of Defence

We just spent £18,000 to see if chickens can cross roads. But we only used “novice” chickens. The real ones who can actually cross roads refused to take part.

Robert F. Kennedy Junior.

Our vaccines are making chickens cross roads because of the mercury in them. How many more chickens are crossing roads every year because there is so much mercury everywhere? Amish chickens don’t cross roads, neither do Christian Scientists’ or Scientologists’ chickens… (continued next year).

Dr. Oz

To get a “wellness” acupuncture treatment. Even though it doesn’t doesn't suffer from any actual ailments.

God

To wear out its flawed heart so I can miraculously repair it.

Sylvia Browne

Only God can cross roads every time. Take down your website or I’ll sue you.

Secretards

Chickens always cross roads, every time, no exceptions.

Secretards

I never said that chickens always cross roads, every time, no exceptions.

Secretards

When chickens fail to cross roads that’s because they CROSSED IMPROPERLY.

(… etc etc)

The Discovery Institute

To misreport the evolution issue.

James Cameron

It’s the lost tomb of the King of the Chickens!

Oprah

The chicken made up its claim that it crossed the road. How dare the chicken support made up stuff? That’s dishonest!

Join me tomorrow when I’ll be promoting “The Secret”.

John Travolta

If the chicken had only stayed on this side of the road, Scientology would have been able to get it off drugs and save its life.

At least I’m not as crazy as Tom Cruise.

Pope Ratzinger

Science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of why chickens cross roads.

Hako Deepcrap

Science can’t understand why chickens cross roads which means that materialism is false.

Croppies

It’s impossible for a chicken to cross the road under those conditions and in under 90 minutes.

PaV

If we can study chickens crossing roads, they must have been intelligently designed.

BarryA

SETI don’t know who their designer is, and so chickens must have been designed to cross roads

Stephen Bennett

"Perverts Without Morals" chose to deliberately mock Jesus Christ, Christians and The Last Supper, by depicting a chicken in the place of Jesus Christ. An egg can clearly be seen in front of the chicken, and we Christians will no longer tolerate this abuse nor be silent.

I’m an ex-homosexual.

Rick Warren

I have a friend, a chicken, who wanted to cross a road. As I was walking I met a woman. She said, "I build pedestrian crossings, I'd be happy to take this case." This proves God exists.

Bill Donohue

The chicken didn’t thank Jesus for its crossing the road award. This is disgraceful. The chicken needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.

I’m a professional victim.

Peter Fisher

I'm very angry about it because people are going to get salmonella - there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent salmonella and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get salmonella, people may even die of salmonella if they follow this advice.

It cures everything else, though.

John Best

I don’t give a rat’s ass about your studies. I win money betting on horses so I know that chickens cross roads because of the thimerosal in vaccines.

I’m a true scientist.

The Society of Homeopaths

If the chicken crossed the road The Society’s reputation could have been lowered.

Another good way to lower The Society’s reputation would be to instigate an absurd meritless lawsuit.

Dinesh D’Souza

The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that we can discover why chickens cross roads and understand reality.

Danie Krugel

I have this magic quantum box that can tell me exactly where in the world a chicken is crossing the road. All I need is a piece of the chicken’s DNA. Look, I said DNA. Also GPS. So this must be science, science, science! That is what is so fantastic about it. It’s just science. That’s it. I have no idea where Madeleine McCann is though.

I work in security at a university.

Various guests on Larry King:

Shirley MacLaine

A chicken doesn’t cross the road when it crosses the road, and we know this because Stephen Hawking says we understand energy.

James van Praagh

There is no such thing as chickens crossing roads. There is no such thing as chickens crossing roads.

Jim Callahan

Criss Angel is trying to prove that chickens can’t walk on water which means I have paranormal powers.

Ingrid Newkirk

It’s disgraceful that we experiment on chickens by seeing if they can cross roads. Send back any products from companies that make chickens cross roads. Terrorize the scientists who work for them. Pass me my pain pills. They’ve been fully tested on chickens, right?

David Kirby

I know the chicken crossed the road but I’m going to keep debating the issue anyway.

Dr. (sic) Manish Bhatia

We have seen a 50% drop in chickens crossing roads due to this SO SUCCESSFUL anti-crossing campaign.

Homeopath writing in the Guardian

Goldacre seems to think that chickens cross roads by walking. He omits the critical component of looking both ways ('lookcussion') first, without which they would, indeed, not “reach the other side”.

Joseph Chikelue Obi

Stop calling me a chicken or I’ll sue. It worked so well for The Society of Homeopaths.

MySpace

You’re banned for daring to ask such a question.

Skeptico

I predicted when and where the chicken would cross the road. Did Sylvia Browne do that? I don’t think so.

The Woo Handbook

Prologue

For some time now I’ve noticed woos using the same type of arguments or argumentative technique, over and over again. It’s almost like they’re using some kind of handbook, or something. I already knew about The Woo Woo Credo, but it seemed to me some new arguments had crept in – almost as if the whole thing had been updated. Well, thanks to stellar undercover work on behalf of Skeptico Net Enterprises, I can reveal the source of these new woo arguments – The Woo Handbook. And it is indeed an updated handbook of the best most irritating arguments the average woo has to offer. Without further ado, I reproduce below the portions of it I have been able to procure to date. Undoubtedly there is more I don’t have (perhaps some of you can add some additional pieces), but I’ll give you what I have managed to obtain so far. So without further ado,  I hereby present extracts from:

The Woo Handbook

My fellow woos – this handbook will enable to you debate effectively with skeptics on the web, or at least irritate them for a bit. Read and absorb its contents and you should be able to debate with skeptics without having to know any actual “science” or anything hard like that. And lets face it, if we wanted to study hard stuff and learn any actual facts or evidence, we’d be real scientists and not woos. And where would be the fun in that?

Before you start though, you should remember that skeptics have many things on their side. Things like evidence, facts, logic. But don’t despair. If you follow the techniques described below it may seem like you have a valid argument more often that you would imagine, given your actual lack of knowledge, evidence or facts. Good luck, and I’m visualizing your success.

Here are the main points to successfully annoying debating with skeptics:

1. Start by telling skeptics you want to “educate them on the facts”. This puts them on the defensive (see next point below) and makes it seem like you’re the knowledgeable one with facts on your side, even though what you’re about to tell them is mostly made up.
2. When the skeptic comes back with demands for “evidence” (they love that word) for your claims, you should say the skeptic is being “defensive”. Alternatively you could try a passive aggressive approach and say the skeptic is “attacking”. Either works as well as the other. With a bit of luck, no one will notice that you didn’t have the “evidence” the skeptic wants and it will now look like the skeptic really is on the defensive.
3. If the skeptic has scientific studies that appear to support his point of view, you should point out that scientific studies have been wrong before. Vioxx is always a good word to bring up here, as is Thalidomide. And if that doesn’t work, you could point out that doctors don’t always agree in their diagnoses, or that Einstein showed Newton was wrong. Really, the possibilities are endless – after all science has been wrong many times before. In fact you should say that science has been wrong many times before.
4. Remember, your personal experience is always more valid than their scientific studies (or your lack of them). Anecdotes will convince more people you’re right than any number of “studies”, so have a couple ready. It doesn’t matter if they’re true – you’re on the internet so no one knows who you are and can check them anyway.
5. Move the goalposts. For example, if you’re claiming that Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism, and the skeptic points to a lack of studies that support this (or the continued increase in autism even though Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines), just start talking about other environmental sources of mercury, or about heavy metals in general. Make it seem the skeptic is a fool for not realizing that (for example) mercury is a “neurotoxin”. No one will notice that the skeptic was arguing something different and you’ll look like the one who really understands the science.
6. Question the skeptic’s experience or qualifications. This usually scores you some points since they’ll normally reply that this is an “appeal to authority” (or some such skeptic-like jargon), and their refusal to state their qualifications will seem like evasion. Remember you’re on the internet, and so no one can possibly know you don’t have the science degree or other experience you claim you have.
7. Skeptics are closed minded, but these days you’ll need to be subtle about saying this or they’ll just say that you’re closed-minded for not agreeing with them. Instead, refer to “closed minded scientists” who are missing the big picture that only you know about. That’ll leave the impression that the skeptics really are too closed minded to see what you see.
8. Question the motives of everyone. A scientist writing a paper must be getting funding from somewhere, after all. If you can’t find actual evidence of nefarious motives or conflicts of interest, no matter – just claim the conflicts exist. That’ll be enough in most cases.
9. Introduce quantum mechanics to the debate. For example, you might say that the observer, in the act of observing, changes the observed, or something similar. If the skeptic asks you any questions on quantum mechanics (for example to see if you really understand it), you can just click here or here and copy and paste some pretty impressive sounding scientific explanations that will silence all but the most knowledgeable. You should then act as though the skeptics are fools for not knowing all this.
10. Say that skeptics are “not skeptical enough”. This Zen-like approach makes you seem like the real skeptic while the skeptics look like rubes. In fact, extra points if you call the skeptics “Rubes” who have been fooled by _____________ (insert whatever they appear to support – big pharma / conventional medicine, you name it). You are then the “real skeptic” and can refer to the skeptics as “pseudo-skeptics”.
11. Alternatively you can say “skepticism is healthy, but…” (and then explain why it isn’t), or you can say the skeptics are  being “too skeptical”, or their skepticism goes “too far”. Avoid all discussion about how far is too far, or exactly when their skepticism has to stop. You might also not want to use this argument too close to the argument in the point above, as some skeptic might point out they contradict each other.
12. If all else fails, use the phrase “The Church of Skepticism”. That always gets them annoyed.
13. Remember that conventional doctors are “allopathic doctors” or “allopaths”. This seemingly scientific term will make it sound like you know technical terms the skeptics don’t. Few people will know they’re meaningless.
14. After the debate has been going for a while you should say you’ve provided studies to support your position, even though you haven’t. You can then periodically refer to these studies as though everyone now agrees you supplied them. Few people will remember you haven’t.
15. Equivocation is your friend. For example, when talking about  how when Columbus first arrived in the West Indies, the natives were literally unable to see his ships (it’s all in “What The Bleep Do We Know!?”), and the skeptic doubts this, just suggest that perhaps the Indians just didn’t realize they were large ships containing people. Or, perhaps they didn’t realize the significance of the ships – that they contained colonizers who would steal their lands and kill most of them off.  The skeptic will seem stupid for not agreeing with this and few people will realize this is not what the film was actually claiming.
16. Drop into the argument the fact that hundreds of years ago we didn’t know radio waves existed, but they obviously did exist, so how does the skeptic know that “qi” (or whatever) does not exist today? If nothing else, that’ll change the subject.
17. Be careful with the “we only use 10% of brain” maneuver – most skeptics will by now have handy a link to sites such as Snopes that debunk that claim. Instead talk about 7% or 3% of the brain, which should confuse them. At least it should muddy the waters. If that doesn’t work, claim you meant 7% of the “mind” and “not the physical brain”. You can then enjoy sneering at them for being stuck in the materialist paradigm, not knowing that the mind and the brain are completely separate things. Now would be a good time to mention “quantum” again. (See above.)
18. In debates that continue over several days, you should repeat arguments you made earlier as though the skeptic is a fool for not having answered these points. In a long debate, few people will realize the skeptic did refute those earlier arguments. At the very least, the skeptic will now have to waste time searching back and quoting what was written before. Few people will bother to follow the argument in this much detail.
19. When talking about whether prayer or The Secret works, say something like God (or The Secret) does answer prayers (wishes to the universe), but that “sometimes the answer is no”. There is really no way they can prove this wrong, and you will appear wise and Zen-like in comparison.
20. Finally, when you’ve used up all the above tactics, say you’re not going to waste any more time with the skeptics you’ve been debating because they’re too sad, stupid, closed-minded, ______ (insert other flaw the skeptic has) to understand your brilliant arguments. Make a big grandiose statement and exit to start anew somewhere else.

Look out for our new section for Intelligent Design Creationism, and how to debate Darwinists.

(Skeptico notes – that section will follow if I can get the full text.)

How is he? Rough!

Now we have a dog who can tell nurses when someone is going to die. I wonder if he would have picked out Joe DiMaggio?

Collective Nouns

See Randi’s list today of collective nouns for woosters. My favorite, “a drawer of spoonbenders,” although “a saucer of UFO abductees/believers” is also pretty good. Click the link for the full list.

I suggested “a closet of Secretards”. Feel free to make up better ones.

Some Sunday Links

RealClimate reports on some groundbreaking research into global warming, in The Sheep Albedo Feedback. 

The Panda’s Thumb reports on how The Discovery Institute had us all fooled, by linking to Those April Fools at The Panda's Thumb. 

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.

SETI finds something

Here’s a reason to run SETI@Home on your laptop. Via JREF I learn that someone was able to retrieve a stolen laptop using the SETI software running on it. When the stolen laptop called into SETI, the IP address of the thief was recorded on SETI’s servers:

Melin monitored the SETI(at)home database to see if the stolen laptop would "talk" to the Berkeley servers. Indeed, the laptop checked in three times within a week, and Melin sent the IP addresses to the Minneapolis Police Department.

After a subpoena to a local Internet provider, police determined the real-world address where the stolen laptop was logging on. Within days, officers seized the computer and returned it.

Finally, proof there is intelligent life in Minnesota.

The Atheist Delusion

And yes – this is a parody.