Skeptico

The appeal to other ways of knowing

Here is another fallacious argument skeptics will have heard:

There are ways of knowing other than the scientific one

or

The scientific method is not the only source of truth

..or similar wording. It is an appeal to other ways of knowing apart from science. The claim is that the tools of critical thinking and science are not sufficient to evaluate the believer’s claim; therefore the believer's claim has validity despite the lack of evidence for it.

The flaw in the argument

No one is claiming that science has all the answers or is always right. However, science has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If the believer is claiming that there is a better method, it is up to him or her to justify that claim. To demonstrate this, believers need to explain their better method for evaluating claims, and provide evidence that it is indeed a better method. If they cannot do this their appeal to other ways of knowing is vacuous and fallacious.

For examples of this fallacy in action, you can do no worse that go to the astrologers such as Robert Hand or Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum. Of course, they have no choice but to utilize this fallacy since all rational evidence shows that astrology is made-up and astrology doesn’t work. Astrologers aren’t the only ones though. For some other examples you could read some of the believer comments posted to this blog. A prime example is this plea for the truth of reincarnation.

Carnival of the Godless

The latest Carnival of the Godless is open now at A Rational Being. Plenty of good rational atheistic reading for you there this Sunday.

How to Succeed at Quackery (Without Even Trying)

For a brilliant take on alternative “medicine”, read A Photon in the Darkness’ second part of How to Succeed at Quackery (Without Even Trying) – satirical instructions for how to milk your alternative niche for all it is worth.

For example, some advice on billing:

Maintenance or multiple visit schemes work best if the bill for each individual visit is smaller. Look at chiropractors, the past masters of this scheme - they charge much less than real doctors for an office visit because they know that this will impress the mark with how much more economical chiropractic is. What the mark doesn't know is that the $60 chiropractic bill will be repeated ad infinitum without having any lasting impact on their physical health.

On your waiting room:

People hate waiting in doctor's offices - surveys have shown that over and over. And the reason they have to wait is that real doctors are treating real diseases that don't always follow the rules of a fifteen minute office visit. Since the quack is either treating imaginary diseases or is giving imaginary treatments, the quack office can run on a much tighter schedule. Your job is to make sure that it does.

On the first consultation:

Plan on a long first visit - an hour or so. This will give the mark the chance to tell you the whole sad story of their life. Don't try to keep them on the track or interrupt them with questions. It doesn't matter if they spend the whole hour talking about how their boss doesn't appreciate them, because it will have no impact on what you do - your treatment will be the same no matter what they say.

All so true. When can we start?

GM in California

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on the November 8 vote on Measure M – a proposal to ban genetically modified (GM) crops in Sonoma County, Northern California.

Both sides are having their say on the issue. First the pro-GM side:

Doug Baretta, a third-generation rancher in Santa Rosa, grows bioengineered corn to feed his livestock. The result, he said, is increased yields because of less damage by pests, reduced herbicide and pesticide applications, less labor, lower fuel costs and less fuel emissions.

"This isn't a food safety issue," he said. "It's just putting us as farmers at a disadvantage to farmers in other counties. The way the measure is written, it's going to affect some of us with the amount of feed that we can grow. It will also affect the vaccines that we can use on our cattle."

Of course, one rancher’s claims of higher yields are anecdotal – GM frequently does increase yields, but whether it does in this case is unknown. Additionally, the pro-ban side disputes claims that the ban would restrict vaccines.

The pro-ban supporters also have their say:

Some family farmers, including certified organic farmers, say the use of bioengineered seeds will cause the genetic contamination of local agriculture and ecosystems and threaten the economic viability of small farms.

Still others say bioengineered foods may pose a health risk to consumers and allow the Monsanto Co. and other large firms to reap huge profits from having a patented monopoly on genetically modified seeds for basic staples such as rice, corn, cotton, canola and soy beans.

Of course, the degree to which GM cross-breeds with conventional crops, and the degree to which this is a problem, is also disputed, as are any alleged health risks.

I think the article covered both sides of the argument fairly. 

Skeptics’ Circle

The Skeptics' Circle is now up at The Uncredible Hallq. Go there to read some of the best skeptical blogging from the past two weeks.

Bogus psychics

Some redundancy in the title there, I agree.

Some good news. Apparently Sky TV (UK satellite TV), has a program called “Psychic Interactive”, which encourages its viewers to call in for psychic advice on premium phone lines. That’s not the good news. The good news is the British newspaper The Mail on Sunday has just exposed this as “a cynical sham” by calling in to the hotlines with made-up scenarios. The psychics all claimed they were “seeing” the fictional people the reporters were talking about:

Our reporter claimed to have lost her brother in a horrific car crash, and a psychic known as Inbaal was quick to say that she could see the dead youth and describe his 'cropped chestnutbrown hair, strong build and acne-free skin'. She added: 'He's very near you. I wouldn't be surprised if you can smell his aftershave.'

When the reporter asked a different psychic whether her fictional husband was having an affair, she was told that he was indeed being unfaithful - but that she could still save their relationship.

The psychic, who said she was gaining her insight from fortune-telling cards, advised the reporter that it would be possible to rebuild the marriage as the affair would be over quickly.

It is especially good to see a national media outlet exposing this nonsense, instead of reporting it as factual like they normally do. Kudos to the Mail.

No kudos to a number of the commenters to the news story. While a few understood the rationale of the article, several commenters will clearly believe psychics are real, no matter what. For example, the prize for missing the point goes to:

If you're going to ring with fictional cases, how do you expect to get real answers?

Yeeeeesss. Now just take these medications; the doctor will be in to see you shortly.

My favorite comment was:

Psychics being exposed as fakes - I bet they didn't see that one coming...

Hey, that sounds like something I would have written.

Reasons to doubt reincarnation

I received an email from David M. who didn’t like my review of Ian Stevenson’s “Children who remember previous lives” that was published three years ago in Skeptic Report. Specifically he objected to part two of that review, “The apparent belief system of Ian Stevenson”. He ignored my detailed explanation of the alternative prosaic explanations for what Stevenson had seen, and focused in on something he claims I invented, namely:

To state that cultures with specific beliefs, the change of sex, no gap between birth and death etc. never show evidence of these things is a complete fabrication.

He is referring to the fact that (according to Stevenson), reincarnations appear to coincide with the cultural beliefs of the society in which they are reported. For example, in cultures where they believe that you cannot change sex in a reincarnation, they don’t report cases of changed sex reincarnation. To me, these are indications that the children and/or the adults observing them are (knowingly or subconsciously), applying their pre-learned cultural beliefs to make the stories fit. In other words, this is a reason to doubt reincarnation. David claimed I had made this up.

Well, it was three years ago, and memory is flawed, so I went back to my review, and checked my notes against the book, and this is what I found. The paragraphs in bold below are from my original review.

Other trends are noted. For example, in cultures where:

They believe that you cannot change sex in a reincarnation, they report no cases of changed sex reincarnation. Where they do believe reincarnates can change sex, this is sometimes reported.

Was this a “complete fabrication”? I’ll quote Stevenson:

The proportion of (sex change) cases varies greatly among cultures; it ranges from 50 percent of all cases among the Athabaskan of the Canadian Northwest Terrorities to the complete absence of such cases in Lebanon and among tribes of southeastern Alaska…

When I questioned the informants in countries where sex-change cases occur, they told me that sex-change from one life to another is possible, but when I questioned the informants of cultures where such cases do not occur, they told me it is impossible.

(Page 178 – my bold.)

So if this is a “complete fabrication”, it must be Stevenson who is doing the fabricating. What about the next one:

They believe that there is no gap between death and rebirth, they always report no gap, usually with the device of a poorly remembered "intermediate life".

Stevenson says:

The Druses… believe that when a physical body dies its soul becomes immediately attached to a newly born physical body, that is, to the body of an infant just delivered to its mother. The Druses acknowledge no exceptions to this rule, and if an interval – even of a day – occurs between the death of the previous personality and the subject’s birth, they assume that an “intermediate life” filled the gap

(Page 176 – my bold.)

So that was Stevenson again. How about this:

They believe that there is no gap between death and rebirth there are no "announcing dreams", because rebirth is instantaneous. These dreams occur regularly where they believe there can be a gap.

Stevenson writes:

The absence of announcing dreams in the cases among the Druses of Lebanon accords with the Druse belief that reincarnation occurs instantly at death.

(Page 175 – my bold.)

What about this:

They have a matriarchal society, the prior lives are more likely to be linked through the mother’s side of the family. The converse is true in patriarchal societies.

Stevenson again:

Among same-family cases of the Tlingit, I found a distinctive feature… in about 75 percent of the cases they are related on the side of the subject’s mother. This accords with the matrilineal organization of the Tlingit society…

Among… the Igbo of Nigeria… I have found the opposite… The Igbos have a patrilineal society

(Page 175 – my bold.)

Last one:

They believe the spirits reside in a "discarnate realm" between lives, the children more frequently remember these "discarnate realms".

Stevenson tell us:

…different cultures show marked variations. I refer to memories of experiences the subjects claim to have had in a discarnate state…

(Page 177.)

Stevenson goes on to speculate how this might correlate to certain Buddhist beliefs. (Admittedly he doesn’t make a hard connection so possibly I overreached marginally in this point – but not by much.)

So none of my points were fabricated. I wonder if David actually read the book. Strangely, David also claimed these points of mine (even though “fabricated”), didn’t matter because:

Children at two years of age and slightly older (which are almost always the subjects of Stevenson's work) are unable to apply cultural beliefs to the commentary they give regarding a past life.

I call bullshit on this point in two ways. First, if the reincarnation claims do not fit the cultural beliefs of the parents, the parents will likely repress these obviously “false” memories of their children, and they will reinforce the “memories” that do conform to the cultural beliefs. So it hardly matters what the child is capable of at this age.

Secondly, in hardly any of Stevenson’s cases did he become involved with children so young. In the 14 cases covered in this book, Stevenson was only involved with one when the child was only two years old. The others were all older: one child was three, three children were four, one was six and seven ranged in ages from 9 to 21 before he even met them! (Stevenson doesn’t tell us how old his fourteenth case was when he met the child.) So who knows what these children really remembered?

And this was my main criticism of Stevenson – the book represents nothing but anecdotes. And as I think I demonstrated, Stevenson is credulously predetermined to believe reincarnation stories he is told.

Stevenson’s work is often quoted as being some of the best evidence there is for reincarnation. (It is because I was told this that I read his book.) Well, if Stevenson’s work really is the best evidence there is, we have no reason to suppose reincarnation occurs.

More anti-GM snorts

Last month I wrote an article on Monsanto and pig patents. In short, I claimed the anti-genetic modification (GM) crowd report dishonestly on genetic engineering issues. As expected, this article generated some strong opinions in the comments, and in this post I reply to some of those comments. You can read the original comments in full at the link, although I have quoted and summarized the main points below.

Before I start, I should emphasize that I’m sympathetic to many of the concerns about GM, and the commenters seemed genuine and thoughtful in their concerns. But many of the arguments presented by anti-GM groups are either bogus, or are smokescreens to hide their real intention, which is anti corporation / anti-capitalism. I don’t know if that was the intention of the commenters, but some of those ideas seemed to be reflected in their comments. For example:

You say anti-corporation / anti-capitalism like it is a bad thing.

I am unsure how ones positive stance on the concept of genetically manipulating foods indicates a pro corporation/capitalism stance. You are conflating two very different issues, as are the birkenstick wearing, granola crunching treehuggers.

No I don’t conflate the two issues, the anti-GM crowd do. There is nothing wrong with making an anti-corporation / anti-capitalism point if you justify that position on its merits. The anti-GM crowd creates a fear of GM to dishonestly push their anti-corporation / anti-capitalism agenda.

A related complaint is that a corporation’s purpose is to make a profit, not benefit humanity, as if this was a valid objection to GM.  So what? Just because a corporation develops GM crops to make profits doesn’t mean the GM crops will not benefit anyone else. This is just ad hominem – attacking the motives of the corporation rather than showing that any actual harm has been done, or no benefit provided.

Even where it is alleged Monsanto did something wrong, fallacious reasoning is still used:

I… would add that the even longer version of the Percy Schmeiser story includes Monsanto sending a private investigator onto Schmeiser's farm, without a search warrant, to gather samples of his crops for genetic testing.

This is the Tu Quoque (two wrongs make a right) fallacy. If Monsanto broke any laws investigating their claim they should be punished for it. But even if Monsanto did break any laws, this would not mean that Schmeiser somehow magically didn’t steal the seeds anymore.

…the ridiculous notion that because a seed was created with one technology, genetic engineering, it is fundamentally different from seed created by careful breeding.

This objection is pretty funny. The anti-GM crowd insist GM organisms are radically different from those created by selective breeding – they’re “Frankenfoods”, remember? So which is it – are they different or not?

Farmers should have the right to save and replant their seed from year to year, period. That's a political position, not an anti-science one.

They do have the right to save and replant seed – just not seed developed at substantial cost by someone else, and sold under a contract that forbids such saving of seeds. No one forces farmers to use Monsanto seed – they can still use the seed they used before Monsanto started selling Roundup-Ready. Farmers will only use Roundup-Ready if it is more profitable for them to do so. That should be obvious.

The most obvious alternative solution to patenting agricultural biotechnology, which has worked well for more than a century, is public research by public agricultural universities.

Who or what is preventing this from happening now? And, more importantly, would the anti-GM crowd support this altruistic version of GM? We know they wouldn’t – they still oppose Golden Rice (as you can also tell from the comments), although that technology is being given away.

And companies like Monsanto are attempting to disable traditional farming technologies such as saving seed; by gratuitously adding genes to make crops unable to produce fertile seed. Why? To further disempower farmers, and enable Monsanto to extract more wealth from them with monoplistic patents.

First, that’s bullshit. Terminator technology has never been used in any commercially available transgenic plant. This is just another example of the lies that continue to be spouted by the anti-GM crowd. (I accept the commenter may not have known this, but has been taken in by the lies that are put out by the anti-GM groups.)

Secondly, the terminator gene was developed to prevent the escape of genetically modified traits into wild species – a concern of the anti-GM crowd. The technology was developed as a solution to one of the anti-GM complaints, but now it is another reason against GM. Whatever Monsanto does must by definition be wrong.

I ended my piece with, “Of course, with the pig patent case, it will be a few years before it is determined if Monsanto have a legitimate claim to a patent or not.” As I also said in my original article, something qualifies for a patent if it is useful, novel and non-obvious. If Monsanto have developed something that fits those criteria, I believe it is not ridiculous that they should be allowed to protect their investment with a patent. And nothing is stopping those pig farmers from using the traditional methods they have always used, if they don’t want to pay Monsanto’s fees.

The Classico Skeptico

Via Pharyngula I learn of Jakob Nielsen’s critique of blog design. While I (like PZ Myers) don’t agree with most of his points, I did think the idea to have a “Classic Hits” sidebar was a good one. So I have placed links to some old favorites in the right hand column, under “Classic Skeptico Posts”. I hope new readers will find them interesting and that it gives them a flavor of what this blog is about.

Old readers can read them again if they want.  No extra charge.

Intelligent Design as good as Astrology

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe, giving testimony yesterday, agreed that astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same standards as he wished Intelligent Design to be judged. (Via Rockstar’s Ramblings and elsewhere. Btw, see Rockstar’s ID exam at the link.)

Actually, I think that’s a little insulting to astrology. Unlike ID, astrology makes testable predictions. Of course, the predictions of astrology fail to correspond with reality, but that’s a separate issue, at least astrology makes predictions and can be tested. ID doesn’t predict anything that I am aware of. Still, it’s interesting to see what Behe includes in his (re)definition of science.

Anyway, via Secular Blasphemy I found this hilarious write-up of the day’s testimony. Behe certainly seems confused about a lot of things, including things that he (Behe) had written or was currently working on:

Every time Rothschild would ask Behe about a statement, some he wrote himself, he'd say he'd have to disagree that it said what it said.

I expected Rothschild to ask Behe whether he was able to read and understand the English language.

At one point during Rothschild's cross-examination, the lawyer asked the scientist whether he was co-authoring a book, a follow-up to "Of Pandas and People," with several other intelligent design moolahs. He said he wasn't.

The lawyer showed him depositions and reports to the court, quoting two of the other authors as saying he was a co-author.

Behe said that he wasn't a co-author of the book but that the statements by those guys weren't false. He said one of the authors was "seeing into the future."

Rothschild asked, "Is seeing into the future one of the powers of the intelligent-design movement?"

Behe didn't answer.

He didn't have to.

Seeing into the future is the province of that other science — you know, astrology.

Michael Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and he holds a Ph.D. in Biochemistry. I am unaware of his astrological sign.

Debating IDiots

A new way to approach them.

Via Pharyngula.

The appeal to be open-minded

All skeptics have heard this from someone at some point in a debate: “You need to be more open-minded” or “You’re too closed-minded”. This is presented as though it is actually a valid argument. In reality it just shows they have run out of arguments. They hide behind it to disguise the complete lack of any rational reason for you to accept what they are telling you. It's the last resort of someone who has nothing – if they had evidence they would obviously present it. 

Even so, it can seem compelling, since calling someone closed-minded is pejorative. But it’s fallacious rhetoric: doubting something is not necessarily closed minded. In fact, the closed minded ones are the believers who insist some fantastic story is true despite a complete lack of evidence to support it. They are too closed minded to accept that their fantasy might be false.

An open mind is…

Here’s the thing. An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense. If you can’t accept the possibility that an idea might be false, then you are the closed minded one. An open minded person will critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. To do so would be fallacious. And credulous.

The real problem

The “have an open mind” crowd are more than just logically wrong.  Their way of thinking is actually destructive to good ideas. Bad ideas should be discarded - by weeding out bad ideas the good can flourish. An earlier version of this argument would have gone, “You’re closed-minded in saying that humors don’t exist” to justify bloodletting. But by focusing uncritically on bloodletting, germ theory would never have been discovered. Germ theory was discovered by skeptical scientists who insisted on evidence, not by new-agers with open minds.

If you accept something when there is no reason to believe it is true you are just credulous. And if you will not reject something when there is no reason to believe in it then you are in freefall – you will believe in anything. This way of thinking is a complete dead end. Or to put it another way, don’t be so open minded that your brains fall out.

That’s better – my mind is now completely open!

Further reading

UK Skeptics have a good write up on this fallacy.

To see the fallacy in action, read some of the comments to my review of What the (bleep) do we know!? Start with this comment, then read this comment (and the rebuttals that follow them), but especially see this series of comments from Boney – see he stretches the have an open mind fallacy to amazing lengths.

Also, see this thread on JREF (long)

“Intelligent Design” cannot be displayed

Another idea for Google bombing: Intelligent Design.

Aliens are irrational too!

ET is likely to be Christian, according to a new booklet published by the ironically entitled “Catholic Truth Society”

Is original sin something that affected all intelligent beings? Is Jesus Christ's redemptive sacrifice sufficient for the whole Universe? Would there be a parallel history of salvation on other planets?

They missed a question: do aliens believe in nonsensical made-up bullshit too? According to The TimesOnline, the publication answers in the affirmative.

To back up his hunch that the aliens will have been subject to Christ’s saving grace, he cites the verses from John’s Gospel known as the Good Shepherd passage. In John x, 14-16, Jesus says: “I am the Good Shepherd . . . I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to My voice. So there will be one flock, one Shepherd.”

Huh? A little earlier in that same book, John III 16 to be precise, we are told:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

(My bold.)

So which is it? Are there little groups of Jebus worshipping aliens scattered throughout the universe, or are we special? I think we should be told.

The war on drugs – an ex-cop talks some sense

The ex-police chief of Seattle, drawing on many years of experience as a police officer, has come to the conclusion that all drugs should be legalized. You really need to read the entire article, but you could start with:

Prohibition of alcohol fell flat on its face. The prohibition of other drugs rests on an equally wobbly foundation. Not until we choose to frame responsible drug use — not an oxymoron in my dictionary — as a civil liberty will we be able to recognize the abuse of drugs, including alcohol, for what it is: a medical, not a criminal, matter.
As a cop, I bore witness to the multiple lunacies of the "war on drugs." Lasting far longer than any other of our national conflicts, the drug war has been prosecuted with equal vigor by Republican and Democratic administrations, with one president after another — Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush — delivering sanctimonious sermons, squandering vast sums of taxpayer money and cheerleading law enforcers from the safety of the sidelines.
It's not a stretch to conclude that our draconian approach to drug use is the most injurious domestic policy since slavery. Want to cut back on prison overcrowding and save a bundle on the construction of new facilities? Open the doors, let the nonviolent drug offenders go. The huge increases in federal and state prison populations during the 1980s and '90s (from 139 per 100,000 residents in 1980 to 482 per 100,000 in 2003) were mainly for drug convictions. In 1980, 580,900 Americans were arrested on drug charges. By 2003, that figure had ballooned to 1,678,200. We're making more arrests for drug offenses than for murder, manslaughter, forcible rape and aggravated assault combined. Feel safer?

I've witnessed the devastating effects of open-air drug markets in residential neighborhoods: children recruited as runners, mules and lookouts; drug dealers and innocent citizens shot dead in firefights between rival traffickers bent on protecting or expanding their markets; dedicated narcotics officers tortured and killed in the line of duty; prisons filled with nonviolent drug offenders; and drug-related foreign policies that foster political instability, wreak health and environmental disasters, and make life even tougher for indigenous subsistence farmers in places such as Latin America and Afghanistan. All because we like our drugs — and can't have them without breaking the law.

As an illicit commodity, drugs cost and generate extravagant sums of (laundered, untaxed) money, a powerful magnet for character-challenged police officers.

Although small in numbers of offenders, there isn't a major police force — the Los Angeles Police Department included — that has escaped the problem: cops, sworn to uphold the law, seizing and converting drugs to their own use, planting dope on suspects, robbing and extorting pushers, taking up dealing themselves, intimidating or murdering witnesses.

A devastating indictment of current policy.  He concludes with an outline plan of how legalization would work:

• Regulation of manufacture
• No advertising
• Taxed
• No selling drugs to minors
• Driving under the influence still a serious crime

I pretty much agree with everything he says. I don’t have a lot to add except that of course, it’s not going to happen: no politician would risk supporting a proposal that opposes the current dogma. I have to hope articles like this may eventually help move us towards a more rational approach.

For your car

It had to happen:

Maher not that smart

I like Bill Maher, (despite his rather dumb opinions on vaccinations), because he comments on current events from a different, perceptive and funny angle. I also agree with him a lot more than I disagree (vaccinations notwithstanding). Recently though it seems he’s been bested by people with inferior arguments. A prime example came on last Friday’s show (HBO – US TV), where his guests were Salman Rushdie, Ben Affleck and blogger Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan is that rare person, a gay conservative Catholic. (Rare in being openly so, anyway.) He’s also very smart and always a good guest on Maher’s show. He gave Maher a pretty good smacking on Friday, as the Transcript for Oct 7 shows, although I think Maher missed the rather obvious comeback. See what you think (all added bold is mine):

 

MAHER: And I have to tell you, what offends me the most about this nomination is that there is no diversity of religion in this country. George Bush does have a diverse Cabinet when it comes to race. They've done a pretty good job: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, so forth. But, you know, I don't think race makes someone as diverse nowadays as how you think about religion. And there's no secular voice. There's no voice of me in this Cabinet. Everyone who gets appointed has to be not just Christ-y, but “Super-Christ-y,” [laughter] “Double-Dog-Christ-y,” “Twice-Born Christ-y.” [laughter] And you know what? That – people of faith – and when I hear “people of faith,” I think, well, those are people who suspend rational judgment for nonsensical bullshit that they believe. Where is the – where is the diversity of the people who think like myself and perhaps you. [applause]
(Snipped comments mainly from Affleck)

SULLIVAN: Bill, I'm a person of faith, and I rather resent being called stupid.

MAHER: I'm not calling you stupid. I'm saying—

SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. [laughter]

MAHER: No, I'm saying it's a mental block. Because I know intelligent—[laughter]

SULLIVAN: I'm saying you have a mental block when it comes to people of faith.

MAHER: No, I had a mental block when I was a child when they taught me this nonsense. And when I got to be an adult, I got over it. [applause]

(Snipped comments mainly from Rushdie)

SULLIVAN: But…people of faith are not talking about what is known; they're talking about what is not known and what we cannot know… And genuine people of faith are not going to make these asinine statements like Franklin Graham or these nut cases that you point out. They're going to be humble in front of God. They're going to recognize that there are some things that science cannot tell you: the meaning of the universe, the point of our lives, what morality is, what happens to us after death, how we should treat our fellow human beings; those questions, I think, in true people of faith who don't seek to impose on other people, are just trying to find a way to live their own lives in a good way. And by demonizing all people of faith … what you do, is you play into the hands of these fundamentalists.

The first obvious point is that Maher never said people of faith are stupid. He said their beliefs are nonsensical (or stupid, to stretch a point). That is a crucial distinction, because smart people can believe in stupid things, as Michael Shermer has explained.

More importantly, Maher didn’t call Sullivan on his main fallacy, namely his claim that that science can’t answer the questions of the meaning of the universe etc, but that religion can. No it can’t. It thinks it can. And it’s sure its explanations are correct. But there is absolutely no good reason to suppose they are correct. They’re just made up. And so they’re probably wrong.

Third, Sullivan’s claim that people of faith “don't seek to impose on other people” is, frankly, bullshit. Religious people have made it their life’s work to impose on other people, from before the days of the inquisition right up to the modern intelligent design movement that seeks to replace science and rationality with made-up nonsense. Or as PZ Myers wrote on Wednesday:

It is not enough to let (people of faith) be, you must also acknowledge the vast and weighty import of their history, their rituals, their majestic all-powerful Tooth Fairy. And since their god is infinitely malleable, they can attach him to anything to add his incalculable mass to whatever end they want. Little kids get told to say their prayers before bedtime—a meaningless ritual backed by the Lord of the Entire Universe. People are killed en masse in wars because they address same Lord by a different name or title than other people.

Sullivan threw Maher off his main point with a phony martyr-act, drivel about religion answering questions science can’t, and innocent “we just want to be left alone” bullshit. In case you forgot, Maher’s original point was that this administration does not have a representative for the secular voice. And it doesn’t. Sullivan didn’t refute this point, didn’t even attempt to refute it, he just red-herringed it away. Maher is good on prepared monologues but not so good on a comeback when challenged by someone smart who disagrees with him. And Sullivan’s challenge really wasn’t that hard to refute.

Maher is on again tonight (8.00pm Pacific, HBO).

Cruise control

Lawyers for Scientology are threatening legal action against the owners of scienTOMogy – a website devoted to the recent antics of Tom Cruise. Read about Scientology’s complaint. Also read the ScienTOMogy blog.

I hope these guys have deep pockets. Scientology has a history of burying opponents with lawsuits, and they do have deep pockets.

It’s a sign!

Oldest noodles unearthed in China:

The remains of the world's oldest noodles have been unearthed in China.

The 50cm-long, yellow strands were found in a pot that had probably been buried during a catastrophic flood.

Radiocarbon dating of the material taken from the Lajia archaeological site on the Yellow River indicates the food was about 4,000 years old.

What more proof do you need? Bow down before his noodly appendage!

Leno gets it right

You’ve probably read how Madonna has upset some Kabbalist rabbi by using the name of a holy mystic in one of her songs. The BBC reports the rabbi saying:

"Jewish law forbids the use of the name of the holy rabbi for profit," said Cohen, who runs a seminary named after Luria in the northern Israel town of Safed.

"Her act is just simply unacceptable and I can only sympathise for her because of the punishment that she is going to receive from the heavens."

Ho hum. She’s only got herself to blame. When you embrace a load of mystical nonsense you can hardly complain when a mystical leader heaps a load of mystical nonsense on you for breaking their silly made-up rules. Anyway, the complaint was that Madonna had used Luria’s name for profit, in one of her songs. Jay Leno (US TV comedian) last night had the solution – Madonna should in future only use Luria’s name in her films.

Swept straight to video

Don’t believe I got one of these

You would think the “Skeptico” email address would have given it away. A hint. A clue. A sign that “You’ll be wasting your time”. But no. Some bozo harvested my email and sent me one of those internet scams. You know: untold millions await - all I need to do is send them a few thousand dollars. Then a few more. Then (er, you get the idea.)

The email is from a Stuart Fielding (or Felding – he spells it both ways). Here is how it starts. (Spelling and punctuation as in original.)

Good Day,

I am Mr.Stuart Fielding,Senior Credit Officer of NATWEST BANK plc. Here is a 100% concealed and mutually profitable business proposal for you.

After the United States and Iraqi war, our client Hatem Kamil Abdul Fatah who was the deputy governor of Baghdad in Iraq and also business man made a numbered fixed deposit for 12 calendar months, with a value of Twenty Five million British  Pounds only in my branch.

Upon maturity several notices were sent to him, even in the first quater of this year.Again another notification was sent and still no response came from him. We later found out that the Deputy Governor has been assasinated in Baghdad.

You know how the rest goes. Does anyone actually reply and send money to these people? I guess someone must otherwise they wouldn’t bother, right?

I think I’ll decline, though. You see, if I’m going to waste my money on a con-merchant it’s going to be with one of “the Internet entrepreneurs of Nigeria”. For one, I received one of the earliest examples of this scam from them in 1992 – in the regular mail! (Yes children, this was in the days before email.) And for two, these guys just won an Ig Nobel Prize for literature. Fielding has a long way to go to catch up.

So I won’t be calling Mr.Stuart Fielding. Even on his “provate email”. Don’t let me stop you though. Just don’t send him any cash.

Psychic claims $25 Million

Move over Randi. A psychic in Brazil is claiming he told the US government where to find Saddam Hussein, and now he wants the $25 Million reward:

A Brazilian court will consider a psychic's claim that the United States Government owes him a $US25 million reward for information he says he provided on the hiding place of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

(Snip)

"Jucelino da Luz alleges that the US armed forces only found Saddam based on his letters that provided his exact location, the very hole where he was hiding in Iraq. So he filed a court case to claim the reward."

(Snip)

The court said Da Luz sent letters to the U.S. government from September 2001, describing Saddam's future hiding place -- a tiny cellar at a farmhouse near Tikrit. He never received a reply

It will be interesting to see just how accurate this psychic’s information was. With perhaps thousands of people in the world claiming psychic powers it would have been surprising if none of them had guessed “in a cellar in Tikrit” at some point. (Anyone with access to CNN would know Tikrit was Saddam’s home town.) So how specific was this guy’s information? Does he have notarized documents to prove what he told them, and when, as is claimed in some places? And what else did he tell them that turned out to be false, that he’s “forgotten” about now?

Even so, this guy appears to have done better than Sylvia Browne who predicted Saddam would be found dead. Of course, Sylvia probably already had $25 Million so what does she care? Also better than PsiTech, the group who supposedly bought the US government’s secret Star Gate remote viewing technology after the government stopped using it because remote viewing doesn’t work. So kudos to him, even if his story does eventually turn out to be only part true.

According to the BBC, Saddam was captured after a tip-off “from an individual who had been arrested the previous day in Baghdad”. Psychic powers were not reported to have been involved.

No pandering to silly beliefs

Great quote from the Economist this week:

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page.

I am reminded of Michael Shermer’s recent comment that most people think “skepticism is fine as long as it is someone else’s codswallop under the microscope”. Of course, there’s about as much evidence for Intelligent Design as there is for Astrology. That is to say, no evidence.

The rest of the article is pretty good on the current legal challenge in Dover, and does not report equally on “both sides” for “balance”.

2005 Ig Nobel Awards

The Fifteenth Annual Ig Nobel Prize ceremony was held this evening at the Harvard University campus. This year’s winners were:

AGRICULTURAL HISTORY:

James Watson of Massey University, New Zealand, for his scholarly study, The Significance of Mr. Richard Buckley’s Exploding Trousers: Reflections on an Aspect of Technological Change in New Zealand Dairy-Farming between the World Wars,"

PHYSICS:

John Mainstone and the late Thomas Parnell of the University of Queensland, Australia, for patiently conducting an experiment that began in the year 1927 -- in which a glob of congealed black tar has been slowly, slowly dripping through a funnel, at a rate of approximately one drop every nine years.
REFERENCE: "The Pitch Drop Experiment,"

MEDICINE:

Gregg A. Miller of Oak Grove, Missouri, for inventing Neuticles -- artificial replacement testicles for dogs, which are available in three sizes, and three degrees of firmness.
REFERENCES: US Patent #5868140, and the book Going Going NUTS!,

LITERATURE:

The Internet entrepreneurs of Nigeria, for creating and then using e-mail to distribute a bold series of short stories, thus introducing millions of readers to a cast of rich characters -- General Sani Abacha, Mrs. Mariam Sanni Abacha, Barrister Jon A Mbeki Esq., and others -- each of whom requires just a small amount of expense money so as to obtain access to the great wealth to which they are entitled and which they would like to share with the kind person who assists them.

PEACE:

Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., for electrically monitoring the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars."
REFERENCE: "Orthopteran DCMD Neuron: A Reevaluation of Responses to Moving Objects.

ECONOMICS:

Gauri Nanda of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, for inventing an alarm clock that runs away and hides, repeatedly, thus ensuring that people DO get out of bed, and thus theoretically adding many productive hours to the workday.

CHEMISTRY:

Edward Cussler of the University of Minnesota and Brian Gettelfinger of the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin, for conducting a careful experiment to settle the longstanding scientific question: can people swim faster in syrup or in water?
REFERENCE: "Will Humans Swim Faster or Slower in Syrup?"

BIOLOGY:

Benjamin Smith of the University of Adelaide, Australia and the University of Toronto, Canada and the Firmenich perfume company, Geneva, Switzerland, and ChemComm Enterprises, Archamps, France; Craig Williams of James Cook University and the University of South Australia; Michael Tyler of the University of Adelaide; Brian Williams of the University of Adelaide; and Yoji Hayasaka of the Australian Wine Research Institute; for painstakingly smelling and cataloging the peculiar odors produced by 131 different species of frogs when the frogs were feeling stressed.
REFERENCE: "A Survey of Frog Odorous Secretions, Their Possible Functions and Phylogenetic Significance,

NUTRITION:

Dr. Yoshiro Nakamats of Tokyo, Japan, for photographing and retrospectively analyzing every meal he has consumed during a period of 34 years (and counting).

FLUID DYNAMICS:

Victor Benno Meyer-Rochow of International University Bremen, Germany and the University of Oulu , Finland; and Jozsef Gal of Loránd Eötvös University, Hungary, for using basic principles of physics to calculate the pressure that builds up inside a penguin, as detailed in their report "Pressures Produced When Penguins Pooh -- Calculations on Avian Defaecation."

Kaz he doesn’t believe her story

What would you think about a woman who claims she was in the World Trade Center when the plane hit on 9/11, sustained multiple injuries, died, went to heaven, and met God and Jesus who told her to return to life and travel the world to spread his message to all mankind? What if this woman was soliciting collections of up to $20,000 each time she told this story at a church meeting? What if she also dabbled in faith healing at these meetings? What if she made several other outlandish claims? You’d be suspicious, right? Or at least, ask for evidence to support her claims.

You would be thinking of “Dr. Kaz deMille” Jacobsen – in inverted commas because it is by no means certain she is a doctor. And because although she claims to be the illegitimate granddaughter of film director Cecil B. DeMille, the DeMille family deny any such connection.

It is a very strange story indeed, and one that Robert Lancaster has made into a quest to investigate and debunk through his Stop Kaz website.

Why focus on this woman when there are so many other frauds equally worthy of attention? As Lancaster says:

…she takes money from people. And since she does it by telling them a pack of lies, she is taking it from them under false pretenses.

And, in my opinion, she does it by desecrating the memory of everyone who died on 9/11.

Good points. Checkout his Stop Kaz website. And if you have any information on this woman, please contact Robert Lancaster: he will be interested to learn what you have.

Q-Link if you want

I received an email from reader JS asking me about the QLink – a magic pendant you wear around your next to protect against Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) and other things. Its makers claim it tunes your being for optimal living:

The Q-Link’s fundamental technology can be understood by imagining a tuning fork that vibrates at a certain pitch. Similarly, the Q-Link’s Sympathetic Resonant Technology™ (SRT™) is tuned to optimize the human energy system through resonance. As it interacts with your biofield, it leads to a rebalancing and restoration according to your individual needs.

According to Randi, this is “the same old crap, pseudoscience and quackery at a high price” (starting at $129).  Sure sounds like it. But what does the QLink actually do? From how the QLink works:

Scientists have long puzzled over force field phenomena that do not fit the four known forces: electromagnetic, gravity, weak and strong forces. These force field (sic) that do not fall into the classical four are sometimes labeled "subtle energies." They are called "subtle" because they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrumentation.

Hum, if they cannot be observed or measured by any known instrument, what reason do we have to suppose they even exist?

Funnily enough, I have actually tried one of these devices. About five years ago, someone bought me one of these things and insisted I wear it. It was supposed to make me feel less tired when sitting in front of a computer screen. I can honestly say I noticed no difference. In fact, I couldn’t tell if I had it on or if I had forgotten to wear it that day. Of course, an anecdote, with just one subject, means nothing. What you need is studies, right? Well QLink have ten impressive-looking studies posted to their website. Impressive-looking, until you look at them a little closer.

The QLink Studies

Two of the “studies” (# 3 and # 7) are just brief descriptions with no link to any actual study, and so cannot be evaluated at all. #7 is stated to be an ongoing study with no results listed. Study 1 is not even a study of the QLink necklace, but is a pilot study of another device from the same manufacturer. (This device is different from the QLink in that it has a 9 volt power supply.) Two of the studies are stated to be single-blind, three appear to have no blinding at all and in one the blinding is unknown. Considering the lack of scientific plausibility for this product, and the subjectivity of some of the metrics, I would suggest that only double-blind experiments would have any validity.

Of the four claimed double-blind studies, Study 6 only consists of four paragraphs. These do not give enough information to evaluate the study at all. As far as I can tell this “paper” has not been peer reviewed, published or replicated.

Study 9 appears to have been carried out by a Chiropractor on 20 patients who are undergoing Applied Kinesiology treatment: a pseudoscientific system of muscle-testing and therapy.

Study 2 purports to be double-blind study on live and dried blood microscopy, showing “significant improvements in blood morphology”. (There were 16 samples.) This experiment was carried out by Dr Robert Young, who is also author of Sick and Tired?: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain: a book that claims much modern disease is caused simply by eating foods that make our bodies too acidic – a claim not widely supported by scientists. The study does not show any improvements in any metric experienced by anyone.

Study 8 claims to be a double-blind study on 184 subjects, analyzing the effects of the QLink on anxiety. This was carried out by David Eichler, who has a PhD in “Energy Medicine” at the Holos University: a “Seminary… that amplifies the research dealing with spiritually based holistic healing”. The data are not published in enough detail to evaluate the study.

That these three studies are by testers who are known to use or support pseudoscientific procedures, does not, in and of itself, invalidate the tests. It does mean that peer review and independent replication are especially important in these cases. As far as I can tell none of these three papers have been peer reviewed, published or replicated, and until they are I suggest they are of little value in evaluating if the QLink works or not. In fact it appears that none of the ten studies have been published or replicated (except that un-blinded Study 5 replicates un-blinded Study 4 – pretty useless.)

So does the thing do anything? Well, Randi has offered the manufacturers his million dollars if they were to win his challenge. Randi notes “for some reason they haven’t responded”. Of course, if the QLink really did something it would be a snip for the manufacturers to distinguish a real QLink from a dummy. Clearly, the burden of proof is upon the makers of the QLink to show, through independent replicated studies, that it works. Until such time as there are such studies, I would suggest there is no more reason to think the QLink works than there is to believe titanium necklaces improve your sporting abilities. That is to say, no reason at all.