Skeptico

Egnor's Dualism Of The Gaps

I see Michael Egnor is writing more of his dualist drivel, in what was presumably supposed to be a rebuttal to Steven Novella.  It is notable that in his latest piece, Egnor again fails to answer any of Novella’s actual points, but instead relies on more of the same fallacies of logic that he relied on before.  I’m sure that Novella will have a detailed rebuttal to this “rebuttal” out soon, but Egnor’s arguments are so bad I couldn’t resist getting in a quick response first.  Egnor’s main point seems to be that his invocation of dualism to explain the mind, purely on the basis that materialism cannot (yet) fully explain the mind, is not a dualism of the gaps argument.  He starts with:

I must say that I’ve never understood the rhetorical force of the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument.

And this is the only point that I agree with - Egnor does not understand this argument.  (Although I would dispute that it is rhetoric - it's actually logic.  Strictly speaking, fallacious logic.)  Egnor goes on to demonstrate his ignorance of what the God of the Gaps really is, with this:

The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science.

No. You. Don’t. Understand. The. Argument.  Not even close.  Dualism of the Gaps means that if materialism cannot (yet) explain everything then dualism does not get to be the explanation by default.  It really is that simple.  For us to accept dualism you need to provide some evidence for dualism, and pointing out that not-dualism doesn’t yet explain everything is not evidence for dualism, it’s just evidence of our own lack of knowledge.  And as Novella pointed out, you can’t justify a positive claim with a lack of knowledge.

Having completely misunderstood the argument from ignorance fallacy that he relies on, Egnor’s next argument relies on another logical fallacy – the one that in my experience non-materialists always come back to:

Dr. Novella responded recently to my post in which I clarified my views on the mind-brain problem. He accuses me of using a ‘Dualism of the Gaps’ argument. I’ve merely pointed out that the salient characteristics of the mind, such as intentionality, qualia, free will, incorrigibility, restricted access, continuity of self through time, and unity of consciousness (the ‘binding problem’) seem to be impossible to explain materialistically.  Materialistic explanations for subjective mental states are not impossible merely because we lack experiments or evidence. Materialistic explanations for the mind are impossible within the framework of materialism itself, because mental properties are not physical properties.  [My bold.]

Because mental properties are not physical properties?  Because?  This is where he’s going wrong.  And I’m going to overkill this explanation in the hope that even Egnor might begin to understand.  (And apologies to those who already get this point, but I’m going to spell this one out in detail, so hopefully anyone can understand it.)  Here we go.  This is Egnor’s conclusion: the mind is not caused by the physical brain, or (to put it another way) mental properties cannot be caused by material properties.  That’s his conclusion.  That’s what he wants us to accept – that mental properties are non-physical so dualism is necessary to explain the mental.  OK so far?  But he just said that materialistic explanations for the mind are impossible because mental properties are not physical properties.  The “because” means that what follows is his premise.  And the premise that follows (“mental properties are not physical properties”) is the same as his conclusion. The premise being the same as the conclusion is the definition of circular reasoning. He has just assumed his conclusion, namely that mental properties are not physical.  But he does not know that mental properties are not physical.  He provides no evidence for this.  He just assumes it.  It’s a purely circular argument.  He does not and can not know that mental properties cannot arise from a physical brain. 

The next bit is just pure assertion - he just asserts as if it were fact, what he wants you to accept:

Nothing about matter as understood in our current scientific paradigm invokes subjective mental experience. The essential qualities on the mind are immaterial. Invocation of immaterial causation that incorporates subjectivity seems necessary for a satisfactory explanation of the mind.

Yes, I'm sure that invocation of immaterial causation "seems necessary" to Egnor, but that doesn’t mean it is necessary.

Yet we know nothing — nothing — about how subjective experience could arise from matter alone.

And we also know nothing — nothing — about how subjective experience could arise from non-matter.  The difference is that at least we know that matter exists.  Where is Egnor’s evidence that his “immaterial causation” even exists, let alone is necessary to explain the mind? 

Dr. Novella is wrong to attribute the inference to dualism to an argument from ignorance. The exact opposite is true. The reason that immaterial causation is invoked to explain the mind is because we know so much about the mind and about the brain, and it’s evident to most people (that is, people who aren’t dogmatic materialists) that the mind isn’t material. It isn’t an argument from ignorance. It’s an argument from deep knowledge — deep knowledge of the mind and of the brain. The invocation of immaterial causation for aspects of mental states is the result of our deep knowledge of the difference between mind and matter.

This is the bit that Egnor doesn’t get – Dualism of the Gaps is an argument from ignorance fallacy because we know nothing about the non-materialistic explanation that Egnor wants us to accept by default.  It’s just a made up magic placeholder non-explanation that he thinks fits the gap of our current knowledge.  It’s totally fallacious reasoning.  On the other hand, the “Materialism of the Gaps” argument that Egnor is trying to make into a fallacy is not a fallacy because we know the material world exists. (Unless you’re an idealist or a solipsist.)  It is a fallacy to insist that your explanation must include some unknown entity that you just made up; it is not a fallacy merely to exclude made up entities.  Ironically Egnor then writes about the “deep knowledge of the mind and of the brain” – and yet he provides no knowledge about where minds comes from.  None at all – just the undefined and un-measurable “immaterial” causation that Egnor thinks "seems necessary."  But "seems necessary" is not the same as “deep knowledge.”  His “deep knowledge” is really a lack of knowledge.

The materialist argument is essentially this: ‘materialism is the complete explanation for the mind, and if you ask questions, you’re a neuroscience denialist’.

Now Egnor presents the straw man materialist.  No, the materialist argument is that materialism is currently the best explanation for the mind, and we have no reason to invent magic “immaterial” explanations.

It gets worse.  Egnor goes on to claim that materialism is in trouble in the scientific world, and to support this he (drum roll) invokes quantum mechanics:

Quantum mechanics, in many of its interpretations, invokes an observer in order to collapse a waveform.

LOL – Woo Handbook #9.  Actually really only one interpretation, not “many of its interpretations.”  And even if the Copenhagen Interpretation is true and not just a metaphor to help scientists get their head around what is happening, it is well known that the “observer” could easily be just the equipment, not a human being.  The need for a conscious observer is completely unfalsifiable, which is why it is not part of the scientific theory.

Egnor can’t resist closing references to some authority figures:

It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists — Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet — were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence.

Personally I’d be very interested in following the evidence for dualism.  Unfortunately, Egnor didn’t provide any.  Not a shred.  Instead all we got was:

1. Misinterpretation of the Dualism of the Gaps argument
2. Circular reasoning
3. Argument from ignorance (Dualism of the Gaps )
4. Straw man
5. Appeal to quantum mechanics
6. Appeal to authority

Rather pathetic.

Skeptics’ Circle

The 104^th Skeptics’ Circle has just been posted at Space City Skeptics.

Egnor Accepts His Woo

From Orac I just learned that creationist neurosurgeon Michael Egnor has accepted the Golden Woo I awarded him three weeks ago.  This is the first formal acceptance.  In accepting his award, Egnor quoted my snippet of his words that I quoted as a justification for bestowing the honor:

There is no shared property yet identified by science through which brain matter can cause mental acts like altruism. Material substances have mass and energy. Ideas have purpose and judgment. There is no commonality.

And he followed with

So I win this materialist's "Golden Woo Award" because I assert that there are properties of the mind, such as purpose and judgement, that are not properties of matter. Furthermore, I assert that this is a problem for materialism.

Yes.  And the problem is just that – Egnor just asserts these things; he presents no evidence for them.  He also conveniently ignores Steven Novella’s rebuttal, that I also linked, that starts with:

[Egnor’s argument] is utter rubbish on many levels. Egnor’s basic point is that the material brain cannot cause mental activity, which is immaterial. But he does not establish that premise, he merely assumes it and his justification is nothing more than semantics. He then accuses material scientists of assuming that mental functions are brain functions, while essentially dismissing a huge chunk of modern neuroscience as “interesting” but irrelevant by falsely invoking the “correlation is not causation” argument.

First, he is treating mental function as a pure abstraction – but in so doing he is assuming his conclusion and therefore is making a tautological argument.

And in my experience, this is the fundamental flaw with virtually all the philosophical arguments around this supposed “hard” problem, namely that the proponents of dualism (such as Egnor) or idealism, just assume that mental functions cannot be physically caused.  And so ultimately, all their arguments circle back to (you guessed it) mental functions cannot be physically caused.  Seriously – I don’t think I’ve ever had a debate with one of these people without circular reasoning making its customary honored guest appearance at a crucial time. Egnor follows this with a hilarious list of arguments from authority figures from Socrates, Plato and Aristotle through Galileo, Newton and Einstein, all of whom, we are supposed to believe, agreed with Egnor. 

Sadly, there is no monetary stipend to go with the award as Egnor imagined, but then he wouldn’t need it to buy me the copy of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy that he thinks I need for the simple reason that I already have a copy.  And I have read it.  And, just as with Egnor’s writing, it contains not a shred of evidence that the mind is caused by anything other than the brain.  FAIL.  Still, if he really wants to spend some money on a book that might explain some things that he is obviously confused about, I humbly suggest this one.  It’s nearly a buck more that the philosophy book, but then you get what you pay for.

Psychic Joe Power Wrong

Yesterday, English woman Karen Matthews was jailed for eight years for faking the abduction of her nine year old daughter Shannon.  Matthews had arranged for a relative to kidnap and hold the little girl prisoner, drugged and bound, so that later the relative could “find” the little girl and claim the £50,000 ($68,000) reward money they would both share.  What a scumbag.  And well deserved jail sentences for both of them. 

But she wasn’t the only scumbag involved in this case.  Enter so called psychic Joe Power (pictured right, with the mother), who gave a psychic reading to the mother and who now is claiming accuracy in his psychic predictions.  The  Paranormal Review is typical of the credulous reporting:

When psychic Joe Power gave a reading to the mother and stepfather of English schoolgirl Shannon Matthews, he made three statements that have since proved to be accurate.

Before I start to deconstruct in detail these so-called predictions, I should point out that the “psychic” missed what was without doubt the most important factor in this case, namely that the child’s abductor was sitting right in front of him!  How anyone can report that this psychic was accurate or that he helped the police in any way, when he apparently couldn’t tell that the criminal responsible was sitting right opposite him, just beggars belief.  In my view that should be enough for any rational person to ignore anything else this bozo has to say, ever, but apparently it’s not.  In fact, Power is actually using this case as evidence that his psychic readings are genuine and that the police should consult him in future cases.  Seriously.  Here’s what he is now saying he got right:

Reporting the safe return of Shannon, The People (16 March) said he came up with vital clues “which could have led to her discovery”. It confirmed he had told the newspaper:

Shannon knew her abductor, who was a relative possibly named Michael or Paul.

She had sat on this man’s knee at a family funeral.

These are mostly generic playing the odds guesses.  She “knew her abductor” is a reasonable statistical possibility.  Even the names Michael or Paul are not that impressive – fairly common names.  But from this report, we know that Power didn’t just give these names, he got them using a standard cold reading technique – ie he asked questions:

“I said to Karen, ‘Do you know a Mick or Michael?’

Paging John Edward to the house courtesy phone - an “M” name wants to talk to you.  Of course, we don’t know how many other names Power guessed that were wrong.  Or even if he really said “Mick or Michael”, or if he just guessed a series of letters and the mother or the stepfather jumped in to supply the missing name. Without this information the “Mick or Michael” would be useless even if these weren’t common names.  In any case, we know this is just standard cold reading.

The next bit is my favorite.  Or alternatively the sleaziest bit of rewriting history.  You decide.  It’s this:

An area named Batley is involved in her disappearance.

The child was eventually found in a flat in the town of Batley, and so this would look like a hit.  The Batley connection was reported in numerous places, for example read this, dated March 16, 2008 - after the child was found.  However, if you check reports such as this one dated March 9, 2008 – ie before the child was found, the story is less impressive:

[Joe Power] later identified the region as the Ossett and Batley area in West Yorks. "Shannon was taken there," he added.  [My bold.]

See the map below (from Google maps) of the area.  The family is reported to be from Dewsbury.  I have marked Dewsbury on the map as well as both Ossett and Batley. 

Clearly “the Ossett and Batley area” would include most of this section of map – approximately 3 to 4 miles square.  So guessing this area is not especially impressive, and certainly of no use to the police (as Power claimed it would have been) who were already searching this area anyway.  But apart from the obvious guessing the nearest towns gambit, notice how the “Ossett and Batley area” guess before the child was found, became “Batley” after the child was found in Batley.  Nice.  And if she had been found in Ossett, it would presumably have become "Ossett."  Anywhere else on the map, and it would still have been a hit.  But I'm sure Power didn't have access to Google so he must have obtained this information psychically.  How else could he have done it?

There were numerous other guesses that Power wants you to forget about too.  For example, this lot:

Joe Power claimed the spirit world told him that the girl got into a car near her school.

And he told Karen, 32: "The car had a baby seat and a brown cushion in the back, and a religious card hanging from the rear-view mirror."

He said it stopped near a church Shannon knew - and the driver used a Texaco garage.

Power, who has appeared on Living TV's Psychic Investigators and worked with police on the Sally Anne Bowman murder case, told Karen: "I can see a lay-by near farmland."

None of which was true, as far as I can tell.  (Or is completely unverifiable anyway – eg “the driver used a Texaco garage.”)  The abductor’s car is described as a “silver Peugeot” – no mention of a baby seat, which would have been unlikely for this man who lived alone with no children. 

The Actuality

What we have here is a so called psychic sleazing his way into this unfortunate situation, applying his well honed cold reading techniques to an unsophisticated family, and making the usual vague guesses that can later be finessed and honed to agree with the actual circumstances.  Vague “Ossett and Batley area” guesses become “Batley.”  Wrong guesses are discarded, and are forgotten by the credulous media.  Apparently no one cares the psychic missed the mother as the perp.  The psychic uses the free publicity provided by a gullible press to further his own dishonest career.  And we know this isn’t the first time that Joe Power has used free publicity in this way.  He claimed to have contacted John Lennon's dead spirit.  He claimed to have helped solve the Lynsey Quy Murder case, although clearly he did no such thing, as the police Detective Superintendent involved in the case made clear:

I wish to state, categorically, that as the Senior Investigating Officer on the Lyndsey Quy murder, I made a policy decision not to use psychics on the investigation. Joe Power has allegedly made claims that he assisted the enquiry but this is not the case."

It should go without saying that the little girl was found not from psychic impressions or profiles, but as a result of routine police work – a neighbor told police that a child’s footsteps had been heard in the flat of Shannon's captor, a man who lived alone with no children. 

I'll say again, Joe Power had no idea the child's mother, to whom he gave a reading, was also the child's abductor.  He had no idea. Joe Power is not psychic.

Skeptics' Circle

Bug Girl has just posted the First Skeptics’ Circle of 2009!  Click the link for the best skeptical blogging of the year.

COTG

My favorite post from the Carnival of the Godless yesterday was What Must We Do To Be Saved?  The writer has actually read the relevant sections of the Bible to try to discover what Jesus wants us to do so that we can be saved an eternity of hellfire torment from our loving God.  Is it just to forgive others, as Jesus says in Matthew, or is it to be good, or not blaspheme, or keep the commandments (which ones?), or give all your money to the poor, or…?  You get the idea.  Jesus seems a little confused about what we have to do.

Anyway, an excellent example of how to examine the Bible rationally and demonstrate its contradictions.  Worth bookmarking.

The Chopra Bait and Switch

Both Orac and Mark Crislip have noted that proponents of Woo medicine deliberately blur the distinction between science based medicine and their Woo therapies.  As Orac wrote, this is bait and switch.  For example, Deepak Chopra will claim that advice on diet and exercise (which is based on science) is part of the “alternative” therapies he is promoting. That’s the bait.  The switch is then to talk about Woo such as acupuncture or Qi Gong as though they were also proven therapies in the same way as improved diet and exercise are proven.  As Crislip noted:

This is innocence by association. By branding normal or proven activities as alternative, it lends an aura of reputability to the unsupported nonsense.

A fine example of this bait and switch equivocation technique can be found in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article (also on Chopra’s Intent blog), by Chopra and friends – presumably in reply to the recent WSJ article by Steve Salerno.  I think it’s worth deconstructing the dishonest way Chopra writes about both Woo and proven therapies in the same article, to imply they’re both proven. 

The Bait

He starts with:

This is a watershed in the evolution of integrative medicine, a holistic approach to health care that uses the best of conventional and alternative therapies such as meditation, yoga, acupuncture and herbal remedies. Many of these therapies are now scientifically documented to be not only medically effective but also cost effective.  [My bold.]

Note that Woo (for example, acupuncture) is included.  Also, that “many” of these therapies have been proven by science.  But which ones?  Chopra doesn’t tell us, but he wants you to think they all have.  But to back this up, he will only talk about diet and lifestyle changes, because he’s still in “bait” mode and these are the only therapies that have been shown to work.  Read how he does this:

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that these approaches may even change gene expression in hundreds of genes in only a few months. Genes associated with cancer, heart disease, and inflammation were downregulated or "turned off" whereas protective genes were upregulated or "turned on." A study published in The Lancet Oncology reported that these changes increase telomerase, the enzyme that lengthens telomeres, the ends of our chromosomes that control how long we live. Even drugs have not been shown to do this.

Chopra’s first link was to a trial which consisted of the following: 

A 3-month comprehensive lifestyle modification was prescribed (13, 14), comprising a 3-day intensive residential retreat, followed by an outpatient phase where participants were in weekly telephone contact with a study nurse. Lifestyle modifications included a low-fat (10% of calories from fat), wholefoods, plant-based diet, stress management 60 min per day (gentle yoga-based stretching, breathing, meditation, imagery, and progressive relaxation), moderate aerobic exercise (walking 30 min per day for 6 days per week), and a 1-h group support session per week.The diet was supplemented with soy(1dailyservingoftofu plus 58 g of a fortified soy protein powdered beverage), fish oil (3 g daily), vitamin E (100 units daily), selenium (200mgdaily), and vitamin C (2 g daily).

His second link was to a trial which consisted of the following:

Patients are placed on a comprehensive lifestyle change program comprising a low-fat vegan diet, stress management, moderate aerobic exercise, and regular participation in a support group for 3 months.

Note, alternative therapies such as acupuncture were not included in either of these studies – they were mainly about diet and exercise.  But at least there were studies cited.  With links. (If you read the blog, not the WSG.)  Bait set. 

The Switch

Here’s the switch:

Chronic pain is one of the major sources of worker's compensation claims costs, yet studies show that it is often susceptible to acupuncture and Qi Gong. Herbs usually have far fewer side effects than pharmaceuticals.

The Woo (acupuncture and Qi Gong) is introduced.  “Studies” are quoted.  But no studies are linked.  You are meant to think acupuncture and Qi Gong have been shown to work in the studies he wrote about before.  But neither acupuncture nor Qi Gong had anything to do with those studies.  Nor had any of the other drivel Chopra normally pontificates about.  Chopra just reeled you in.

He then wraps everything together with some feel good benefits that you are supposed to think you will receive if you subscribe to Chopra’s therapies:

Joy, pleasure, and freedom are sustainable, deprivation and austerity are not. When you eat a healthier diet, quit smoking, exercise, meditate and have more love in your life, then your brain receives more blood and oxygen, so you think more clearly, have more energy, need less sleep. Your brain may grow so many new neurons that it could get measurably bigger in only a few months. Your face gets more blood flow, so your skin glows more and wrinkles less. Your heart gets more blood flow, so you have more stamina and can even begin to reverse heart disease. Your sexual organs receive more blood flow, so you may become more potent -- similar to the way that circulation-increasing drugs like Viagra work. For many people, these are choices worth making -- not just to live longer, but also to live better.

I don’t know if a healthier diet etc actually means you will grow more neurons, or if Chopra is overreaching.  And I don’t even want to think about Chopra becoming “more potent” as he claims.  But I accept that a healthier diet, no smoking, exercise etc would be good for you.  But this has nothing to do with the acupuncture or the Qi Gong that he also introduced in this article. 

Funnily enough, I agree with the way he ends, although perhaps not in the way he intended:

It's time to move past the debate of alternative medicine versus traditional medicine, and to focus on what works, what doesn't, for whom, and under which circumstances.

Yes I agree, it is time to move beyond alternative medicine verses science based medicine, and to focus on what works.  Because once something has been shown to work, it is no longer alternative.  "Alternative" is just framing for "doesn't work."  The trouble is, Chopra doesn’t want to exclude what doesn’t work.  He wants to include it.  He just won't be honest and say so.

Edit January 12

Orac posted today on this story.  He notes that the two studies Chopra referred to were essentially the same study – the second one being a further analysis of the first.  In addition they were of a highly select group of men and consisted of an extreme low fat diet that would be very hard for many people to maintain.  His whole post is worth reading.

Detox Still Doesn't Work

In June 2005 I wrote Detox diets don’t work, reporting on a BBC article that laid out fairly clearly that the body’s own natural systems get rid of toxins quite nicely thank you. Having a healthy diet and lifestyle is important, but beyond that, special “detox” kits and plans don’t really do much.

Okey dokey. So roll forward to today, we have the bad and the good.  The bad: actress Gwyneth Paltrow informs the world (for reasons best known to herself) via a newsletter that she is going on another detox diet.  The good: the BBC in timely manner writes Scientists dismiss 'detox myth'. (Thanks to reader Jimmy Blue for the link.) Whether Paltrow’s newsletters (which include bowel movement advice too, apparently), or her website (Goop.com) are valuable sources of information in general, I’ll leave you to decide. But she’s wrong about the detox. As the BBC article reported, the independent charitable trust Sense About Science (“promoting good science and evidence in public debates”) recently reviewed 15 detox products and found many of their claims were meaningless.  Yeah, apparently vendors of detox products were using phrases that sounded scientific but didn’t actually mean anything. Sense About Science just launched its own detox leaflet Debunking Detox (.pdf). As they write:

The leaflet promotes the liver and kidneys as a fantastic ‘detox’ system and explains why there is no need to spend money on expensive products and treatments.

They explain

Our bodies have their own ‘detox’ mechanisms. The gut prevents bacteria and many toxins from entering the body. When harmful chemicals do enter the body, the liver acts as an extraordinary chemical factory, usually combining them with its own chemicals to make a water soluble compound that can be excreted by the kidneys. The body thus detoxifies itself. The body is re-hydrated with ordinary tap water. It is refreshed with a good night’s sleep.

These processes do not occur more effectively as a result of taking “detox” tablets, wearing “detox” socks, having a “detox” body wrap, eating Nettle Root extract, drinking herbal infusions or “oxygenated” water, following a special “detox” diet, or using any of the other products and rituals that are promoted. They waste money and sow confusion about how our bodies, nutrition and chemistry actually work.

Sense About Science is an excellent source on science v. woo and skepticism in general.  Alternatively, Gwyneth Paltrow will tell you that bowel elimination is paramount for correct detoxification.  I know which I'll be reading.

The Golden Woos

As several groups are apparently giving out awards, I decided I would start some of my own – The Golden Woo Awards for outstanding work in the promotion of Woo in the previous year. It’s a bit like the Golden Globes, only for, er, Woo.

Now, some of you might notice that the award titles look similar to Randi’s Pigasus Awards, with just the words “paranormal,” “occult” etc replaced with Woo, and might think I’ve just run out of ideas for posts and purloined Randi’s idea as my own. (Cough.) Clearly that isn’t true as I have at least one extra category that Randi doesn’t have. However, if you were to view this post as my Golden Globes in advance of Randi’s Oscars... then you could. Perhaps the great man might even read this and get some ideas for April 1st?

OK so here goes – the Golden Woos for 2008. I hope you’ll find them entertaining.

The scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing related to Woo

Michael Egnor for his tireless support of Intelligent Design Creationism, and especially his many recent assaults on materialism. For an example of the latter, see his article ‘Waiter, My Steak Isn’t Altruistic Enough!’.  A snippet:

There is no shared property yet identified by science through which brain matter can cause mental acts like altruism. Material substances have mass and energy. Ideas have purpose and judgment. There is no commonality.

As Steven Novella wrote, this is utter rubbish on many levels.

The funding organization that supported the most useless Woo study

Stanford University, for a clinical trial on Energy therapy: Where mysticism meets science. Ten years after Emily Rosa demonstrated that Therapeutic Touch practitioners can’t detect the energy field they claim to manipulate, people still want to study this nonsense.

The media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous Woo claim (AKA the “Larry King” prize)

Joint winners – the Haunting Reality TV program and the British Sunday Express newspaper. For not only making up stories about the abduction of Madeleine McCann, the four year old English girl who disappeared in Portugal in May 2007, and pretending these were obtained “psychically.” That would have been bad enough. But these clowns also produced a drawing of the man they say abducted the child, and reproduced it on the TV show and in the pages of the newspaper, apparently not caring that their made-up picture might get some totally innocent man into trouble.

The Woo who wrote the most drivel containing the most logical fallacies

This has to go to Deepak Chopra, for whom it should really be a lifetime award for achievement above and beyond. For an example, please read Leave the Sinking Ship: An Open Invitation to the Wall Street Journal to Get on Board for Integrative Health Reform – an entire article based around six logical fallacies, one unsupported claim and no discernable content.  A snippet:

Over the last three decades, millions of Americans, and a dedicated group of physicians and practitioners have front-line, hands-on experience with integrative health care. Via concerted research and clinical practice, international scientists and practitioners, have progressively uncovered the root causes and the most effective treatments for health maintenance and restoration. This is science’s cutting edge.

Because we can all remember the “cutting edge” Woo that has found the root causes and cures for cancer, AIDS etc.  Yeah.

In future years I will rename this award the “Chopra”, in honor of this year’s honoree, who will sadly be excluded from consideration in future. (Otherwise no one else would ever stand a chance.)

Irony Award, for being completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own actions or words in defense of Woo

To the producers of Expelled, a movie complaining about how proponents of Intelligent Design are discriminated against and are being “Expelled” from their academic positions, who expelled PZ Myers from a theater where the movie was being shown, despite his having a valid ticket.  Apparently “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was not just the film’s title, it was its marketing strategy.

Hitler Zombie Award (aka “The Godwin”) for appropriating Hitler to make the most outrageous Woo claim

Again to the producers of Expelled and Ben Stein, for claiming that evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

The most persistent refusal to face reality

The mercury militia, for continuing to insist autism has to be something to do with vaccines despite the mounting weight of contrary studies. This award is given for the continued heroic moving of goalposts to include numerous ambiguous “toxins” as well as the “too many too soon” mantra in the face of more and more evidence that it’s not MMR and not Thimerosal.

The most ridiculous or bigoted act using religion as its justification

A hard one to judge, since there were so many contenders. An almost infinite number, actually. But for sheer mean spiritedness I’m going to give the award to the proponents of Proposition 8 in California, who not only campaigned to remove the right to marry from gay people, but who even now are actively campaigning to have the gay marriages that were performed before the ban, retroactively disallowed. That takes a considerable amount of determined hate, of the sort that only religion can readily inspire, and for that they get the award. Numerous people were involved in this valuable work, but to keep it simple the award can be accepted by either Rick Warren or the Mormon Church.

That’s it.  Perhaps I missed someone, in which case please nominate any special people I may have missed, in the comments.

Chopra - Bailing Like Crazy

The latest piece of Choprawoo is really bad.  In fact, I find it hard to believe anyone who is a qualified MD could have written such a pile of drivel.  Except then I remember it is by Deepak Chopra – the guy whose confident made-up nonsense inspired me to start Skeptico in February 2005.  (Actually this latest article is attributed to “Deepak Chopra, MD Andrew Weil, MD and Rustum Roy, PhD” – but is on Chopra’s blog and the Huff Post under Chopra’s picture and name.)  This latest piece is entitled Leave the Sinking Ship – where he implores the Wall Street Journal to abandon its recent foray into rationality, The Touch That Doesn't Heal – an article by Steve Salerno critical of unproven therapies of the type Chopra favors.  But it’s clear from Chopra’s article that the sinking ship is really the one Chopra and his pals are traveling in.  Chopra is bailing like crazy, because his boat is the one that’s full of leaks.  [OK, enough with the leaking boat analogies.]

Chopra’s piece is just one logical fallacy after another.  This is Chopra's article, summarized:

• Ad hominem
• Appeal to authority
• Red herring
• Science was wrong before
• Appeal to other ways of knowing
• Straw man

Add claims of “concerted research and clinical practice” that his woo works, without one shred of evidence that his woo works, and you have Chopra’s entire article.  (He should employ me as his editor.)

Orac shredded Chopra’s piece in a slightly longer article (hard to believe, but true) than my summary, in a post entitled The woo-meister supreme returns, and he's brought his friends.  An excellent piece that pretty much covers it all.  Orac did leave me one small morsel to attack though.  It was this:

A new integrative medicine system would marry the superb options of high tech emergency care, its brilliant surgical achievements, the tried and least harmful pharmaceuticals, by empowering and educating its citizens to maintain wellness and prevent disease, through improved nutrition, exercise, stress-management, and a wide range of other proven integrative approaches. Sadly, mainstream medicine largely ignores these viable health approaches.  [My bold.]

“New”?  For many years, I remember being asked by my doctor, whenever I visited:

• Did I smoke?  (No – but if I had said yes she would surely have told me to stop)
• What did I eat – and advised me to reduce butter and cheese and meat intake
• How much did I exercise – and told me to exercise more

“Mainstream medicine largely ignores these viable health approaches”?  Bullshit.  As Orac and others have pointed out, this is just a bait and switch – Chopra is appropriating science based modalities (such as nutrition and exercise), and claiming they are part of the woo he is promoting.  Or as Mark Crislip writing today in Science Based Medicine, so brilliantly put it:

This is innocence by association. By branding normal or proven activities as alternative, it lends an aura of reputability to the unsupported nonsense.

“Innocence by association” – I’ll have to remember that.