Skeptico

Mark Souder Gets It. Or Not

From PZ I learned of more stupidity from a Republican Congressman. Yeah, hard to believe, but true.  Rep. Mark Souder, in a recent interview, claimed admitted that the highlight of his year was appearing in Expelled:

I personally believe that there is no issue more important to our society than intelligent design. I believe that if there wasn't a purpose in designing you — regardless of who you view the designer as being — then, from my perspective, you can't be fallen from that design. If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.

First off, this is a critical thinking blog and so I am required by law to tell you this is an Appeal to Consequences logical fallacy – the truth (or otherwise) of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true (or not).  If it did, Santa Claus must be real, or Christmas wouldn’t be so much fun.  Of course, you knew that.

My legal duties taken care of, it struck me that, fallacious logic or not, Souder unintentionally spoke the truth there.  As he said, “If you can't be fallen from that design, there's no point to evangelism.”  Quite true.  Unfortunately, Souder will probably not draw the obvious conclusion from his own words, namely there's no point to evangelism.  But then, we know from Senator Mark Pryor that you don’t need to pass an IQ test to get into congress, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.

Imaginary Illness? Try Imaginary Therapy

A wireless internet network in the UK is being blamed for all sorts of illnesses, from headaches to pneumonia, according to the Telegraph newspaper:

…the residents of Glastonbury, which has long been a favoured destination for pilgrims, are at the centre of a bitter row in which many blame the town's new wireless computer network - known as wi-fi - for a spate of health problems.

Some healers even hold that electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) generated by the wi-fi system are responsible for upsetting positive energy fields of the body, which are known as chakras, and positive energy fields of the earth, which are known as ley lines.

Oh noes!  Wi-Fi is messing up “ley lines” and “chakras” – things that are entirely imaginary!  And how do they know?  Because “some healers” think so.  But wait, it’s not just the healers:

Meanwhile soothsayers, astrologers and other opponents of the wi-fi system have resorted to an alternative technology - known as "orgone" - to combat the alleged negative effects of the high-tech system.

Well if soothsayers and astrologers think it’s a problem then case closed.  Well, almost.  I would just like to hear where dowsers stand on this issue before I give my final verdict. 

What to do about this?  Fortunately, a local man who “campaigns against EMFs” has the solution:

Matt Todd, […] has started building small generators which he believes can neutralise the allegedly-harmful radiation using the principles of orgone science. The pyramid-like machines use quartz crystals, selenite (a clear form of the mineral gypsum), semi-precious lapis lazuli stones, gold leaf and copper coil to absorb and recycle the supposedly-negative energy.

That’s what I like about new agers today.  They don’t just want to get rid of the negative energy, they want to recycle it.  This is sustainable woo!

But what is this “orgone science” solution, exactly?  The Skeptics’ Dictionary has a piece on Orgone Energy and its creator, Wilhelm Reich:

Reich claimed to have created a new science (orgonomy) and to have discovered other entities, such as bions, which to this day only orgonomists can detect. Bions are alleged vesicles of orgone energy which are neither living nor non-living, but transitional beings.

Reich died on November 3, 1957, in the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he was sent for criminal contempt. The criminal charge was levied because Reich refused to obey an injunction against selling quack medical devices such as the Orgone Accumulator and orgone "shooters," devices which allegedly could collect and distribute orgone energy, thereby making possible the cure for  just about any medical disorder except, perhaps, megalomania and self-delusion.

Also, read The Straight Dope’s What's the story on Wilhelm Reich and his orgone energy?

Orgone Away

[Note: the above headline should really have been “Orgone Conclusion,” but Connie beat me to it.]

So there is there is no such thing as Orgone energy.  You have an imaginary illness.  Don’t worry, it can be cured by an imaginary therapy.  Perfect.  Good woo cancels out bad woo.  Well, recycles it, anyway.

On a more serious note, there’s no good evidence that Wi-Fi networks like this can cause any of the illnesses suggested.  On the contrary, there have been several studies that show supposed Wi-Fi sensitive people can’t even tell if there is a Wi-Fi signal present or not when tested double-blind.  Which would tend to support the Nocebo hypothesis (a placebo in reverse – giving the appearance of harm rather than the appearance of good).  Plus there is no known scientific reason why such illnesses should result from Wi-Fi, which is a relatively low power signal.  TechSkeptic’s article on DECT scares, although written to cover a slightly different aspect of microwave scares, is a good primer on the general issues, and includes links to the double-blind studies I mentioned.  You could also read the World Health Organization’s Electromagnetic fields and public health article.

Let’s get real.  Quoting soothsayers and astrologers as authorities to support these claims is a bit like getting in a Feng Shui practitioner to tell us if a bridge is safe or not. 

… for pyramidiots.

Psychics Fail

That’s the only conclusion a reasonable person could make.

Over two months ago I wrote Psychics Make Firm Predictions – about how some “TV psychics” had information about Madeleine McCann, the four year old English girl who disappeared in Portugal in May 2007.  As I wrote back then, the information they came up with included:

• What the abductor looks like – with a drawing
• The abductor’s first name
• The actual address of an apartment where the abductor was supposed to have stopped
• The location of Madeleine’s body.

They supposedly gave this information to the Portuguese police.

So far, nothing has come of this information.  Although they gave the police the location of Madeleine’s body, no body has been discovered in this high profile case.  There has been no report of searches of the apartment where the abductor supposedly stopped with Madeleine (and the actual address was given, remember). 

I wrote two emails to the Express reporter, Mike Parker, who wrote the story I cited, requesting more information.  Lacking an actual email address for him, I wrote to the general news desk email, asking it be forwarded to Mike Parker.  My first email, sent Oct 26, was:

Regarding your story about the "psychic" pictures etc of Madeleine McCann's abductor:

You state in your report that the address of an apartment and the location of Madeleine's body have both been given to the local police.  Can you tell me, have the police searched these locations?  Clearly Madeleine's body hasn't been found otherwise we would have heard of it by now.  Do you know why not?  Didn't the police search the area given by the psychics?  If they did, what do the psychics have to say to explain why the body wasn't found?

Also, could you please tell me who at the FBI told you that "all three members of the Haunting Evidence team have been used in major criminal investigations"?

Thank you.

I tried again on December 21:

Mr Parker:

In light of the continued lack of progress in finding Madeleine, and the parents' new video appeal issued today, I wonder if you had thought about my questions that I raised some eight weeks ago (see below).  I understand that you have pressures to write a story, and that "psychic" stories sell copy, but don't you think it's time for another story following up on the psychics' success (or lack thereof) in locating Madeleine and/or her abductor?

I received no reply to either email.  So we have a reporter, who wrote a fluff “psychics are real” piece, who isn’t interested in following up to see if his facts were correct,  Sadly, no surprise.

Perhaps more significantly, I also tried to contact the TV so-called psychics.  They have no published email address, so I used their contact page.  My second message to them, also sent December 21, was:

In light of the continued lack of progress in finding Madeleine, and the parents' new video appeal issued today, I was reminded by the claims made in your TV program some months ago.

As I recall, you stated that that the address of an apartment and the location of Madeleine's body had both been given to the local police.  Can you tell me, have the police searched these locations?  Clearly Madeleine's body hasn't been found otherwise we would have heard of it by now.  Do you know why not?  Didn't the police search the area you gave them?  If they did, how do you explain why the body wasn't found?

Of course I only received their canned “thank you for taking your time to submit comments…” reply.  A message left on their forum on October 25 also went unanswered.  And I wasn’t the only one asking for evidence that they had actually solved any crimes. 

This is the blurb they have about themselves on their website:

Psychic profiler Carla Baron, medium John J. Oliver and paranormal investigator Patrick Burns take a terrifying descent into the heart of evil, as they see murders through the killer’s mind and the victim’s eyes.

These people make me sick.  They make a living and get fame based on made-up claims of using Psi powers.  When asked reasonable questions about why nothing came of their lame pretend-psychic drivel, they hide behind automatic reply emails.  Their enabler in the mainstream press is no better.  “TruTV” (sic) and The Daily Express should be ashamed of themselves.

Three liars, too scared to reply.

Carnival of the Godless - Special Newtonmas Edition

This Thursday we celebrate the birthday of Sir Isaac Newton, born December 25th, 1642 (old style calendar).  Newton remains one of the true giants of science, having discovered that gravity affects celestial bodies according to the same laws that we observe on Earth. Newton’s equations are still used by NASA when sending vehicles into space.  Of course, Newton was also religious, but he was a man of his time – a time before we knew about evolution, before man had shrunk the need for God as an explanation to just that of a “designer” who tinkers with DNA (according to Michael Behe, anyway).  Perhaps if Newton had been born today he would have been less enamored of religion, just as he would almost certainly not have experimented with alchemy.  Anyway, his religious beliefs in no way diminish his scientific achievements, and his birthday (Newtonmas) should be celebrated.

That’s all very well, but recently I’ve become aware of the war on Newtonmas (TWON).  Apparently many Christians, not content with appropriating the Winter solstice celebrations that take place today (Happy Solstice to any pagans reading), and the celebrations and customs of other religions, now want to appropriate the Newtonmas holiday too.  They are even calling TWON, “the war on Christmas.”  How dumb is that?  So I’m going to start with several posts that comment on this absurd “war.”  Here goes…

The War On Christmas (TWOC)

To start us off, Ron Gold presents The "War On Christmas": Bill O'Reilly's Ill-Conceived Fight posted at The Invisible Pink Unicorn, arguing that if you're concerned with what greeting a store clerk gives you, then maybe you're really condemning the secularization of the commercialization of Christmas.  Nice thinking.

Yvette presents O'Reilly: Holidays For Christians Only posted at Blue Linchpin. This is an open letter to O'Reilly containing some logical arguments.  Ha – like he’d even recognize a logical argument.  Worth a try, though.

Robert McCormick presents Good for Goodness sake posted at Relatively Science, where he tells us that the Bible (Jeremiah  10:1-5) outlaws the whole idea of a Christmas tree anyway.  Huh – so the Bible’s against Christmas too?  I guess I’d better post a picture of a Christmas tree, then.  Here it is.

Vjack presents How Christians Have Secularized Christmas posted at Atheist Revolution, about how Christians are themselves responsible for the war on Christmas, and how they have the solution in their own hands (if they are willing to take it).

Vjack also presents Encouraging Children to Believe Falsehoods posted at Mississippi Atheists (he has two atheist blogs!?), asking if teaching our kids the Santa Claus myth undermines our credibility when we later try to teach them critical thinking.  No Santa?  That that really would be TWOC.  What about Newton in a Santa hat?  Would that be OK?

To round up TWOC posts, Procrustes presents State of Christmas posted at State of Protest.  He concludes the State of Christmas is that the State should stay out of Christmas and all religious affairs.  And that is really where TWOC should end.

Just Regular Godlessness

There were some non-TWOC posts too.  First off, H presents maybe god was only pro-life for daniel and isaiah (the guys, not the books) posted at ...And That's How You Live With A Curse, asking, if God is so against abortion, how come he calls so  often for children – including unborn children - to be killed?  I  think we should be told.  (Backed up with Bible quotes.)  Wow.  I guess God needs a hug.  Perhaps he’ll get one if I post some mistletoe.

Adrian Hayter presents Crackergate Continues: FSMdude Interrogated posted at The Atheist Blogger.  Apparently "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” is optional for some Christians.  Somebody called the cops on a kid who had posted YouTube videos of magic crackers being desecrated, alleging the kid had a gun and was planning a murder spree.  Nice.

Regular Skeptico commenter (and fierce debater) Tom Foss presents On Suffering and Sacrifice posted at Dubito Ergo Sum, asking Christians, if you could go back in time and successfully rescue Jesus from the crucifixion, would you do it?  The way some believers answer that question is… interesting.

Greta Christina presents two posts on what is it like being an atheist in the LGBT community compared with being LGBT in the atheist community.  Part one is Being an Atheist in the Queer Community, and part two (on what she thinks we should do about it) is How To Be An Ally with Atheists, posted at Greta Christina's Blog.  Greta’s posts are always insightful, and these are no exception.

Yvette presents A World Without Gods posted at Blue Linchpin, asking if atheists should really be working on changing minds through logic and reason, or would a better strategy be to reach out to theists in other ways?

Arensb presents Foxholes and Shoe Leather posted at Epsilon Clue.  He tackles the old "no atheists in foxholes" myth, and argues that even if it were true, it’s only because people resort to desperate measures in desperate times.  It doesn’t mean those desperate measures are effective.

Hank presents Why I am not an atheist posted at Dangerous Intersection.  Also the reasons he is an atheist.  Not as confusing as it might it appear.

Seth Manapio presents suicide posted at Whiskey Before Breakfast... the Blog – on why people without faith still have reasons to live.  And care about things in general.

Mansur Ahmed presents The Great Religious Divide posted at Film, Literature, and the Human Condition.  Explains why Humanism is not a religion, but is rather an ethical approach to life.

Summer presents Raising Kids Without Religion posted at Wired For Noise.  The post title speaks for itself, although the interesting thing is that it’s written by a person of faith.

Transplanted Lawyer presents Invoke Rule Eleven On The Thomas More Law Center posted at Not A Potted Plant, about how the Thomas More Law Center is wrong on all counts regarding the Muslim-bashing lawsuit they filed alleging America is a Christian Nation.

I hope you like the picture of the holly – another image the Christians appropriated.  Btw, don’t do what I did and Google images of “holly.”  Funnily enough, if you do that you don’t get many pictures of holly, just lots of skimpily clad women.  You have to Google “Christmas Holly”, which proves the war on Christmas has failed, if you ask me.  (And I know you all just Googled images of “holly” anyway.  Santa can see you, you know.)

While we’re on the subject, Ron Britton presents Stop the (re)Presses! posted at Bay of Fundie, describing how some fundies have become outraged at Victoria's Secret store displays. BoF's posts are usually amusing, and this one is no exception.

Andrew Bernardin presents Where Does the Soul Go? posted at the evolving mind. 

Steve Snyder (SocraticGadfly) presents Obama sellout NO. 344 - Rick Warren at inaugural posted at SocraticGadfly. A short post on why we might as well throw politics under the bus and get Jeremiah Wright in the mix, too.

I even sneaked in a quick post of my own on why Rick Warren Is Wrong.

Finally, Chris Hallquist presents David Aikman's _The Delusion of Disbelief_ posted at The Uncredible Hallq – his latest entry in a longer series critiquing the critics of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris.

That’s It

That’s it for this edition of the COTG.  So kick back on Thursday and raise a glass to Sir Isaac. And remember, Newton was actually born on December 25th, unlike, er, that other guy whose birthday is also celebrated by many the same day.  Of course, celebrating Newtonmas doesn’t mean you can’t also celebrate Christmas if you want (or Hanukkah, or anything else for that matter).  Santa, trees, presents, turkey etc are not restricted to Christians, so celebrate the day any way you want.  And ho ho ho.

The next edition of COTG will be in three weeks time on January 11th, 2009, at CyberLizard's Collection.  Please submit all entries using the GOTG submission form - that way, the host receives your entries via email as nicely ready-formatted html.

And I believe Brent is looking for hosts.  Hosting the carnival is a great way to raise the profile of your blog.  Check out the Carnival of the Godless page for guidelines and for contact information for hosting requests.

Rick Warren Is Wrong

A wrong choice for Obama to be a major figure in his inauguration, but also wrong in general.

I know that Obama’s big deal is supposedly inclusiveness – to include all in his cabinet and the decision making, even those who may disagree with him.  Well OK, including some people who may disagree with you, and who won’t be afraid to stand up to you, can be a good thing.  We could have done with some of that over the past eight years.  But having someone who disagrees with you is one thing.  It is OK to disagree at times.  What is not OK is to include someone who is just plain wrong.

Warren is wrong on so many things.  Many people have pointed out that he is wrong on Proposition 8, and everything to do with the treatment of gay people.  But then Obama has also said he’s against gay people being allowed to marry, so perhaps Obama agrees with Warren on this topic, on some level at least.  So it’s not this thing that surprises me so much about this pick.  It disappoints me considerably, but it doesn’t totally surprise me.  What I do find incomprehensible though, for a President-Elect who has promised to reinstate the importance of science in his administration, is that he will give so much prominence to an evolution denier.

For example, this is Warren during a debate with Sam Harris:

If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.

Warren’s ignorance of science most likely informs his other positions on gay rights, stem cell research and women's rights.  Such a man should not have any place in Obama’s inauguration.  Inclusiveness is OK, wrong is just wrong at any time.

Skeptics' Circle

The 102nd Skeptics’ Circle has just been posted at Bing’s place, cunningly disguised as a transcript of a meeting between Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (RB) and Bing McGhandi (BM), Director, Department of Evil. 

Which is the Parody?

Poe's Law states that a good parody of religious fundamentalism is hard to tell from the real thing.  I’m starting to think there is a similar law that applies to alternative medicine.  For example, read the two pieces I’ve quoted below and see if you can guess (no cheating!) which one you think is of the real claimed to be real healing modality, and which is the parody.  They are both similar in that they propose healing techniques that are applied to a doll, rather than to the actual person under treatment.  It’s a bit like voodoo – you treat the doll not the person.  Except I think voodoo spells are supposed to make the person ill, while this is supposed to make the person better.

Here they are.  I have changed the names of the two therapies to example 1 and example 2.  Here’s the first:

In a typical therapy session, the [example 1] practitioner uses a small human anatomical model as an energetic representation of the patient, tapping on targeted points on the model with a lightweight magnetic hammer. The practitioner directs chi to blockage points corresponding to the patient's condition, breaking down resistance at these points. As blood flow, neural transmission, and hormone reception are restored, the body is then able to heal.

[…]

And the distance between the patient and the therapist makes no difference. The patient and therapist connect when they are on the phone together, in the same room together, on the same planet together, or on different planets together. The togetherness is the constant, because we are all “connected” by an invisible energy field in our universe. We are all swimming in this energy field together. Quantum physics simply calls distance healing a “non-local event.”

And the second:

The principle of [example 2] healing is simple.  As 'like affects like', an appropriately manufactured and treated wax doll or cloth puppet may substitute for the patient, and manipulations performed on the doll substitute for those performed on the patient.  Techniques of visualisation and channelling of healing are easy to learn, and it is possible to combine [example 2] with 'conventional' or allopathic medicine simply by administering the medicine to the doll rather than to the patient.

[…]

The image may be identified with its subject by the embedding of ousia - items connected with the subject such as a hair or nail clipping, or even a blood sample.  This greatly enhances the therapeutic effects of [example 2] procedures, and in particular allows the practice of [example 2] at considerable distances from the patient, even over the telephone or the Internet.

Well?  Personally I find it hard to believe they aren’t both parodies.  In fact, example 2 is from the The British Veterinary Voodoo Society – a spoof site started by some veterinarians in the UK who were incensed that the British Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) sanctions treatment of sick animals with homeopathy.  The joke is that if you think homeopathy works, you might as well try voodoo.  I wrote about The British Veterinary Voodoo Society before.

However, example1 is a therapy that its proponents seriously claim to be real – Tong Ren.  Click that link if you must but be warned – the stupid on that site will kill your brain cells.

I don’t need to write any more on this because fortunately Orac already delved into this in much more detail that I would have had the patience for, and this morning posted Tong Ren: An unholy union of acupuncture and voodoo.  I have to say, after reading the first part of Orac’s post, I got the feeling the Tong Ren site was a parody, and I clicked over there convinced that Orac had been fooled into debunking a spoof site.  After a while though, I decided it was genuine, incredible though that is.  I guess we do need a Poe’s Law for SCAM.

Astrology's (lack of) Provenance

Back to this again.

I’ve written before about Provenance – how most scientific discoveries didn’t just appear fully formed, but were derived from earlier experimentation.  As an example, I described how the discovery of radio waves by Heinrich Hertz was based on earlier discoveries of electricity and magnetism, made by Newton, Young, Huygens, Faraday, Maxwell and others.  The fact that the discovery of radio waves was based on other discoveries, each backed by substantial amounts of evidence, meant that the discovery of radio waves was not such an extraordinary claim when it was first made. 

In a similar vein, nearly four years ago I issued The Astrology Challenge – I asked proponents of astrology to tell me how the rules of astrology were derived.  As examples, I described how  Galileo knew that the planets orbit the Sun and not the Earth, and how we first calculated the speed of light.  As I wrote then, if no one can say how the rules of astrology were derived, in the same way we can describe how the speed of light was derived, then the rules of astrology were probably just made up.  And any hypothesis that was just made up, is unlikely to be true.  No one has yet been able to tell me (showing their work) how the rules of astrology were derived.

A couple of weeks ago I received an email from a reader, purporting to tell me just that.  Unfortunately he did no such thing.  Instead it was just 1,200 words consisting of the usual logical fallacies we’ve all heard and refuted many times before.  I won’t bother to repeat them.  He did have one thing I hadn’t heard before though.  It was this:

… on the night of February 17, 1869, the Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleyev went to bed frustrated by a puzzle he had been playing with for years; how the atomic weights of the chemical elements could be grouped in some meaningful way and one that, with any luck, would open a window onto the hidden structure of nature. He dreamed, as he later recalled, of "a table where all the elements fell into place as required." His intuition that when the elements were listed in order of weight, their properties repeated in regular intervals, gave rise to the Periodic Table of the Elements which, though much revised since, underlies modern chemistry.

If Dmitri Mendeleyev were an astrologer instead of a chemist trying to figure out the meaning of heavenly movements and had a dream about the meanings of the zodiac and the planets along with their meanings could you accept that, like you accept his dream about the periodic table of elements?

My emailer was likening the discovery of the periodic table to the discovery of the rules of astrology.  If Mendeleyev could literally dream up the periodic table, then why couldn’t ancient man have dreamed up astrology?

There are a couple of fundamental problems with this interpretation.  Firstly, the emailer’s (copy and pasted) paragraph actually debunks the argument he is trying to make.  The important wording, that he didn’t notice, is that Dmitri Mendeleyev went to bed:

…frustrated by a puzzle he had been playing with for years…

He didn’t just dream up the periodic table out of whole cloth.  There was already a problem he was trying to solve, namely to classify the elements according to their chemical properties.  And he finally solved the problem.  Most likely after a good night's sleep, rather than in a dream.  But whether he literally dreamed it, or whether he just had the answer in the morning, is immaterial.  He had been puzzling over a problem, and eventually found a solution.  Where is the original problem the inventors of astrology were trying to solve?  And where can I read about it?

Secondly, Mendeleyev’s periodic table made several predictions that later proved to be true.  For example:

…not only did he leave spaces for elements that were not yet discovered but he predicted properties of five of these elements and their compounds.

The missing elements were later proven to exist, exactly as Mendeleyev had predicted.  Contrast that with astrology where not only was there was no problem to be solved, but the predictions of astrology proved false when tested.  It’s great to “dream up” wild ideas, but unless they can be confirmed by testing, they will should remain just dreams.  Where can I read of how the early astrologers’ predictions came true?

One more thing - the “dream” story is probably a myth anyway.  From the same source I cited above:

There were two main problems about establishing a pattern for the elements. First only 60 elements had been discovered (we now know of over 100) and second some of the information about the 60 was wrong. It was if Mendeleev was doing a jigsaw with one third of the pieces missing, and other pieces bent!

Mendeleev had written the properties of elements on pieces of card and tradition has it that after organising the cards while playing patience he suddenly realised that by arranging the element cards in order of increasing atomic weight that certain types of element regularly occurred. For example a reactive non-metal was directly followed by a very reactive light metal, then a less reactive light metal. The image of a stamp collectors’ miniature sheet shows a stamp commemorating the hundredth anniversary of the Periodic Table superimposed on some of Mendeleev’s original jottings.

(My bold.)

Right there, we have an example of the sort of thing I’m looking for with astrology.  It turns out my emailer’s attempt to answer my question (strictly speaking, to render it moot), actually proved to be yet another example of how real scientific discoveries are derived. 

So again, I’ll ask the proponents of astrology, show me how the detailed rules were derived.  And I mean show me, with evidence, with the data they used, how they calculated it, how they validated it.  Don’t just say (as this emailer also said), that astrology was first conceived when highly intuitive individuals saw a correlation between heavenly movements in the cosmos to their relations here on earth… (etc etc).  Tell me where can I read the details of how they did this?  The details of the testing.  Where are they? 

This thing was a nightmare to figure out.

DECT and Other Radiation Woo

A reader emailed me worried that perhaps a specific wireless technology called DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Technology) in a baby monitor might be dangerous to his baby.  It seemed to me that this was probably bogus, but that the question was more TechSkeptic’s area, so I emailed him the question.  He replied with a detailed post - DECT scares.  His conclusion:

If you arent worried about your TV, or sleeping near your cell phone, or having heated sheets or leaving your computer on, then you really shouldn't worry about the effects of a DECT phone. There is simply no mechanism by which it can bother you, and better than that, there is really no evidence that the actual tiny emmissions from any radio device actually affects anyone, mechanism or not.

But you should read the full article.  It includes easy to follow explanations of, for example, microwave radiation, and why microwaves from a DECT device will not cook you although a microwave oven does cook food. (Hint: the cooking is not due to the effects of ionizing radiation.)

When anyone starts talking about radiation and radio wave scares, electro-sensitivity or anything similar, the DECT scares post would be a good place to refer them.

Battlefield Acupuncture

TechSkeptic sent me this article that I find it hard to believe isn’t from The Onion - Military tries 'battlefield' acupuncture to ease pain:

The technique is proving so successful that the Air Force will begin teaching "battlefield acupuncture" early next year to physicians deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, senior officials will announce tomorrow.

[…]

Using tiny needles that barely penetrate the skin of a patient's ear, Air Force doctors here say they can interrupt pain signals going to the brain.

Their experience over several years indicates the technique developed by Col. Richard Niemtzow, an Air Force physician, can relieve even unbearable pain for days at a time.

And I thought this cartoon was a joke.

Perhaps it was. But it’s not anymore.  This military doctor is apparently claiming he can interrupt pain signals going to the brain for days at a time.  And he is relying on "experience over several years" - presumably because actual studies suggest that acupuncture is nothing more than a highly elaborate placebo. For example:

Orac, here, here and here.

Steven Novella here, here, here, here and here.

Harriet Hall here and here.

Our troops deserve better.  For example, only treatments that have been shown to work.

[Note: cartoon from DC's IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page.]

Dec 15 - Edited to add:

Two more blog posts today from Orac and Novella:

Skeptical Battlegrounds: Part III - Alternative Medicine

Taking woo in the military to a whole new level: Deploying acupuncturists to Iraq

Jesus The Play

My favorite post from yesterday’s COTG is undoubtedly The Resurrection ! - Adapted For The Stage.  It’s the supposed rough drafts of, well, the resurrection of Jesus, adapted for the stage.  The different drafts represent the different versions of the resurrection myth, depending on which gospel you are reading, and shows the author’s difficulties in arriving at a consistent story that agrees with all the different versions found in the Bible.  It’s very well done.  I really can’t quote any of it – you have to read it all to get the full benefit.  The first part (based on Matthew) might seem a little slow, but as you read on to the second part and beyond, you’ll see the point.

It’s one of those posts that makes me say, “I wish I’d thought of that.”

Carnival of the Godless #106

The Holiday Feast Edition of the Carnival of the Godless has just been posted at An Apostate’s Chapel.  Plenty of food for thought there, as the host says.

As a side note, I’ll be hosting in two weeks time on December 21.  Please send me your posts for inclusion by end of day, Friday December 19.  Also, Brent is looking for hosts.  With over 1,000 atheist blogs, there most be a few who would like to host a COTG.  It’s great publicity for your blog.  See the COTG scheduling page for Brent’s contact details.

Skeptics' Circle

The Skeptics' Circle has been posted at Ionian Enchantment - promoting African skepticism "because the continent, you see, needs skepticism."  Here here.

Blasphemy Logic Failure

From Orac today I learnt of the latest attempt by the religious to claim the entitlement they clearly believe is their birthright, namely to prevent anyone from criticizing their delusions. Apparently the United Nations has just backed an anti-blasphemy measure proposed by Islamic countries. Although this is currently only advisory to other UN members, the religious nuts clearly won’t stop there unless they absolutely have to. This is an issue of free speech – no one has a right to never be offended. Orac has a good expose of the dangers with this, and there’s no need for me to repeat the arguments here. Check out Orac’s post Anti-blasphemy = anti-free speech for the details.

I wanted to comment on one point though – fallacious logic from the Dutch government. Apparently the Dutch may scrap the current legal ban they have on blasphemy, effectively expanding hate speech to include it. The bit that caught my eye was the flawed justification for it:

The statement said there was no difference between insults aimed against people based on their race, religion, sexual orientation or handicap.

No no no no wrong wrong wrong. (Sigh.) We’ve been through this before. The argument is a false analogy.  It’s quiet simple really. Race, handicap, sexual orientation are things that people ARE. Religious beliefs are IDEAS. They are not analogs. They are different things altogether. You should not criticize people because of their race, sexual orientation etc because these things can not be right or wrong, they just are. And we are all human beings, we should not be criticized for being black, being gay, whatever.  But an idea (such as believing in the tenets of a religion) can be right or wrong. (Usually wrong, actually, in the case of religion, although that is besides the point with respect to the logic.) It’s really discouraging that the government of such a modern democracy apparently relies on such piss poor logic.

And look at the argument – it is nothing more than an argument by analogy – almost always fallacious. Here is their argument. It goes something like this:

1. We all know that ________ (insert preferred thing - racism, homophobia – something no one can disagree with) is bad.
2. Criticizing religion is just like ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________ (same thing as in 1. above)
3. Therefore criticizing religion is bad.

You’ll notice, no actual evidence facts or logic are offered to show that criticizing religion is, actually, bad.  And as I wrote before, when someone argues by analogy, you can be pretty sure it’s because they don’t have any facts, evidence or logic to support their position. Because if they had any facts, evidence or logic they would presumably present it. Now maybe someone can come up with a reason we shouldn’t criticize religion.  I can’t think of a valid reason off hand, but perhaps there is one somewhere.  But one thing is for sure, saying it’s just like racism isn’t it.

All ideas should be open to criticism.  But no ideas should be subject to criticism more than religious ideas – they’re the ideas, out of all the ideas out there, not backed by evidence and in many cases clearly contradicted by the evidence.  Which is of course why they want to ban criticism – because they know their delusions won’t stand up to investigation.

The Incredible Shrinking God

Prologue

The Date: Pre-historic times – tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Ug and Og are sitting around the campfire. They had recently discovered fire. “Fire good” they said. Well, that’s what they would have said if they had invented language yet, but their language was still little more than a few grunts. (Hence the names.) Or perhaps it had developed to something more complex. (Some think it had by then.) They certainly had big brains, just like modern homo sapiens, even if they didn’t have our knowledge. So they were curious about things. And they wondered why things happened. For example, they wondered why the Sun crossed the sky each day, what caused it to rain, what caused the thunder and lightning, why it was hot in the summer and cold in the winter. They couldn’t explain those things, but possibly someone, sometime, invented the idea of a God or Gods who magically made them happen. And lacking another explanation, they believed that these things were caused by God. “God mad”, grunted Og, as the thunder rolled in again. “Ug” grunted Ug in agreement. It probably seemed like a good explanation at the time.

Roll forward a few years

In ancient times, God used to be really powerful. Or at least, his presence was required to explain virtually everything that happened in the world. For example, the ancient Greeks believed that the God Apollo [edited to add: or possibly Helios] pulled the Sun across the sky every day in a flying horse-drawn chariot, and other cultures believed similar things about their gods. Each morning at dawn, God rose in the east, rode his chariot pulling the Sun through the sky to the west, to return during the night when the Sun showed only its dark side. Or so it was believed.

Similarly, ancient man wanted an explanation for thunder and lightning. Of course, knowing nothing about electricity, he decided that the most likely explanation was that lightning bolts of fire were being thrown by Thor. Something like that, anyway.

In medieval times no one knew what kept the planets moving in their orbits. Many thought that each planet had an angel to push it on its journey. Even Newton thought this might have been the case. Of course, Newton refused to include supernatural explanations in his laws of gravitation, and because of that we can use these laws even now to send probes to land safely on Mars (most of the time). Since “God” was not included in the explanation, man was free to look for other explanations for the formations of stars and planets and their orbits.

In recent years, “cdesign proponentsists” wrote that organisms such as the bacterial flagellum were "irreducibly complex" and could not possibly have arisen through unguided evolutionary processes alone. Despite this claim, we know that irreducibly complex organisms can evolve. “God” is not needed – even to produce irreducibly complex organisms.

The creationists haven’t given up though. Some argue that although micro evolution (small changes within species) happens, macro evolution (evolution to another species) can not. God is clearly needed to add the additional information to the DNA to accomplish the development of each new species. And Michael Behe, in his recent book “The Edge of Evolution”, gets into even more detail – he now writes that protein-protein binding sites couldn’t have developed by natural means, and therefore now this is what God does.

And that’s what it’s come to. God used to be responsible for moving the Sun across the sky each day. If God didn’t get out of bed and make this happen, there would be no Sun. Now, God is reduced to tinkering with bits of DNA. You can picture God in his workshop. All around him, clouds of gas are collapsing in upon themselves due to the force of gravity until hydrogen begins to fuse and stars are formed. Occasionally one of these stars will go supernova, creating the heavier elements. Over millions of years, some of this matter will clump together under gravity to form planets. And so on. Then, after a few billion years, God comes along and thinks, “Hey, I’d better create some protein-protein binding sites stat or this whole process will come to a grinding halt,” and gets to work. Pretty demeaning for him. (Although at least he doesn’t have to get out of bed every day to drive that damn chariot. That was a real chore.)

Seems a little sad for the God believers though. Their God, once so big, has shrunk to something so small. And what if someone comes along later and discovers that God isn’t even needed for protein-protein binding? (Oops – someone already did.)

The Intelligent Design/God of the Gaps approach is a dead end. If early man had taken Behe’s attitude we’d still believe God caused the Sun to rise and set, threw thunderbolts, etc. and we wouldn’t understand anything. Fortunately, not everyone settled for God of the Gaps explanations, and so we do know better. But why should anyone think Goddidit would be a good explanation now, when it’s been consistently wrong and singularly useless every time it has been evoked since the dawn of time?