Skeptico

Ad hominem

I’ve been meaning to write this article for a while but I’ve been pretty busy recently banking all those checks from “big pharma” companies and living the high life on the proceeds. Also, this last week has been full of Libertarian Party meetings. We’ve been busy planning to remove all labor, environmental and safety regulations from corporations; it’s very time consuming.

Seriously, I have been accused of those things recently: in The Huffington Post and in the comments. Funny thing, the accusers always think this refutes the arguments I’ve been making, as if an (alleged) affiliation with (say) the Libertarians somehow magically changes Robert F. Kennedy’s article so that it’s now true instead of a pack of lies. Well they’re wrong. This mode of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem: attacking the person presenting the argument, instead of pointing out a flaw in their actual argument. It’s a fallacy because even if the criticism of the person is true, his argument may still be valid. You can only tell if the argument is valid by examining the actual argument to see if it is actually valid.

Three cases

I can show what I mean by presenting three possible scenarios:

Case 1

Just supposing I really am a paid shill for the pharma companies. I’m writing my piece because I’m paid to express those views, not because I have arrived at them by honestly examining facts and evidence. That means I’m writing my piece irrespective of the facts, and so my piece may well be factually inaccurate. If that’s true, it should be easy for my opponent to point out these inaccuracies shouldn’t it? So why don’t they? Why do they insist instead on just saying I’m a pharma industry shill? Surely what matters is if the argument I have presented is correct or not?

Case 2

Alternatively, suppose I’m still a pharma industry shill, and I’m still writing my piece because I’m paid to do so, but suppose that my piece just happens to coincide with the facts. My piece is factually correct, purely by accident. So what is the relevance that I am a pharma industry shill?  My piece is correct regardless. Surely what matters is that the argument I have presented is correct?

Case 3

I’m not a paid shill for the pharma companies, and I have written my piece based on what I think is a good honest evaluation of the facts and evidence. Of course, my arguments could still be wrong – I’m only human after all. So how does anyone tell if my argument is correct? Surely they would still have to examine my arguments to see if they are correct or not?

In all three cases above, my status vis-à-vis being paid by the pharma industry or not is irrelevant: what is important is the data – if my piece is correct or not. It’s always the data that’s important, not my political affiliations, not who pays me, not my qualifications (or alleged lack thereof), not any other agenda I might have. Nothing about me is important. Only the data is important.

Attacking the person instead of the argument they present is intellectually lazy. It’s a substitute for thinking. It’s also 100% flawed reasoning: you don’t arrive at the conclusion from the argument presented. The funny thing is, people on both sides of the political spectrum criticize the other side for this method of debate, and yet they don’t realize they do it themselves. For example, those on the left will rail at Karl Rove for smearing his opponents and yet they will be the first to criticize their opponents based purely on a connection to (say) a corporation and profits rather than to any actual wrongdoing.

Critical thinking means you understand logical fallacies – you recognize them in someone else’s argument and you don’t rely on them in forming your own arguments. You’ll notice I didn’t criticize Kennedy because he is a lawyer with no knowledge of the science, or because he is (allegedly) opposed to big corporations. I attacked his data as being factually inaccurate. And if you want to criticize me you’re going to have to do the same.

If you believe in this it’s not real

Betcha didn’t realize I’m all knowing and all seeing? Well, I am, see. So I’m told anyway. Apparently, some friends of mine were having a debate about whether water drains clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere (it doesn’t). One friend insisted it had nothing to do with which hemisphere you’re in, but was totally dependent on the design of the sink and drain. He was asked how he knew, and he said “(Skeptico) told me”. That apparently ended the debate. Wow, I never know I had such power! (All I have to do now is get them to stop believing in astrology. Oh well, one thing at a time.)

Anyway, this same friend was being bugged by some other people who apparently think the government is using secret Russian mind-control technology on us, or something. He gave me a printout of New world Order and ELF Psychotronic Tyranny and asked me what I think. Some samples:

...WE MUST CHANGE OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS if we are to change our international relations. ... THE UNITED STATES IS PREPARING TO MAKE AVAILABLE OUR BASES AND FACILITIES FOR MULTI-NATION TRAINING AND FIELD EXERCISES. One such base, with facilities is Fort Dix, N.J."
President Bill Clinton has continued and expanded George Bush's surrender-America policy. As a result, increasing numbers of foreign troops, including Russian Spetsnaz, along with vast amounts of foreign military equipment are now entering the United States to serve as a U.N. OCCUPATION force.

On May 3, 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order Presidential Decision Directive (originally numbered PPD-13, later changed to PPD-25) that places U.S. troops under U.N. command and abolished the law limiting the number of U.S. troops that can be committed to the U.N. without approval of Congress.
PPD-25 also created special funding for U.N. peacekeeping and occupation forces, that permits an UNLIMITED drain upon the U.S. Treasury. American Tax payers will be forced to pay any amount demanded by the U.N. occupation forces.

…

Acting under U.N. occupation orders, U.S. military and national guard forces are now being trained to attack civilians in this country. In Alaska, contingents of Russian military OCCUPATION FORCES are reported to have already landed. State and Federal forces, have begun house-to-house surveys, looking for gun collectors and checking attitudes for possible patriotic resistance.

Marines were asked to give their attitudes on the treason statement: "I am a United Nations fighting person. I serve in the forces which maintain world peace and EVERY Nation's way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their service." The last item on the survey asked the Marines' attitude about the statement: "I WOULD FIRE UPON U.S. CITIZENS, WHO REFUSED OR RESIST CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS BANNED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT."
As more Russian and United Nations occupation troops enter the United States, the White House is expecting strong resistance from loyal Americans. To QUIETLY suppress these patriotic fighters, President Clinton is getting help from the old Soviet KGB.
Moscow is now supplying Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno with a whole new class of weapons, that will be specifically TARGETED AGAINST AMERICAN CIVILIANS.

…and on and on for another 20 pages.

In summary, I think they’re saying the New World Order (some kind of UN world government headed up by the Russians and the US) troops have invaded the US, and US troops are being trained to fight against US citizens but the government is using remote mind control technology to prevent the US population from finding out about this. Psychic powers are being employed too, as is some kind of giant laser on the space shuttle for “mind zapping”. People are being tricked into thinking they were abducted by aliens, so they won’t realize they have really been hit by the government’s mind-zapping laser beams. (Hey, alien abductions aren’t real – told you!) And all this was predicted in Revelations. Oh and yes, all this happened during Clinton’s presidency, 11 years ago.

I think that’s it.

It’s hard to know exactly where to start with such crazy conspiracy nut stuff, but just a few observations:

1. There are a lot of claims about what the government is doing, but little (read zero) evidence to back it up. Where are the references? (Ah yes, the mind control ensures there is no evidence – cunning! But then how do we know about it at all?)
2. It’s dated 1994 (the printout is – and as far as I can see the printout is identical to the link). That's a year before Windows 95!  So why is there no evidence of this UN world army eleven years later (when we need it!)?
3. What is it with this superior Soviet technology? Have you ever driven a Russian car, watched a Russian TV or used a Russian computer?  Me neither. 
4. If they have this mind control stuff (this was eleven years ago, remember) why aren't they using it in Fallujah now?
5. Why so much written in ALL CAPITALS as though WRITING IN ALL CAPITALS MAKES IT TRUE?
6. If the government really is controlling our minds the way this article says, how come we are able to read about it so easily? The government can control everything with this sinister new technology but can’t shut down this one puny website that gives away all the secrets? If mind control is real, surely we wouldn’t know about it?

What the hell, I think I’ll just refer to John Baez’ Crackpot Index. The following are especially relevant:

2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters

Number seven’s a killer – that alone puts the score at over 8,000 by my rough count. Baez doesn’t say what score you have to achieve to qualify as a crackpot, but I think I can safely say the guy who wrote this is...

Hey, perhaps these people need to make themselves one of these thought screen helmets from Stop Alien Abductions (“it’s a tested device that works”). It has full assembly instructions (“Apply tape to any areas  that need reinforcement. Remember, you will sleep with the hat on”), and instructions for use (“One abductee reported that when she wasn't wearing the helmet, the aliens gave her a telepathic command when they were about to take her to not put on (sic) the helmet. The only way to stop such alien telepathic commands is to wear the helmet as much as possible”), and testimonials (“Since trying Michael Menkin's Helmet, I have not been bothered by alien mind control. Now my thoughts are my own. I have achieved meaningful work and am contributing to society. My life is better than ever before. Thank you Michael for the work you are doing to save all humanity”).

Who could argue with that?

Good

Following up on this story, I learn today that Sir Roy Meadow has been struck off the British General Medical Council after having been found guilty of “serious professional misconduct”. Justice of a kind for the women who were wrongly convicted of murder by Meadow’s evidence.

Vaccines – it’s the aliens stupid

A reader wrote to alert me to The Vaccine Aliens by Raymond W. Gallup. This is a book that:

…carries a message elemental, truthful and powerful. A rapid and ominous deterioration is taking place in the health of our children, of which the increasing incidence of childhood autism is just one of the markers.

Aaaagh! That’s right - it’s a science fiction story about a father whose son developed autism after getting the MMR vaccine. It tells how he and his friends stumble on shape-shifting aliens at a pharmaceutical company that want to destroy the human race with vaccines. It sounds like bad science fiction that I wouldn’t normally comment on (really bad sci-if is great – I love “Plan 9 From Outer Space”), but looking at the author’s links it seems he wants us to believe this is a well researched book based on truth. Shape shifting aliens who want to destroy the human race using vaccines that cause autism? Yeah, I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t think this isn’t truthful. And apparently the author claims this is a “unique and original story”.

Unique and original? Hardly. David Icke has already written about shape-shifting aliens, as well as vaccines and autism. This Gallup guy may be crazy but he has a whole long way to go before he even gets close to David Icke.

Anyway, I think I’ll skip the book and wait for the movie. It’ll star Tom Cruise (“vaccines are pseudo-science – here, take these vitamins”), with Robert F. Kennedy in a cameo as the tireless investigator exposing the truth.  I can barely wait.

Titanium necklace improves your baseball

Reader Carmen sent me this link to a New York Times story on Titanium necklaces being worn by baseball players. At $23 a pop, these are made of nylon, coated in a titanium solution that the manufacturer claims helps improve circulation and reduce muscle stress.

So how do they work? This from Scott McDonald, who is selling them:

Everybody has electricity running through their bodies… This product stabilizes that flow of electricity if you're stressed or tired. Pitchers are seeing that they aren't as sore. Injured players are seeing that they recover faster from workouts. People are always skeptical, but when they try it, they become believers.

Bwahahaha, this is the same logic used by people who say that our bodies are 90% water, and the moon causes tides, so astrology must work. Yes, but there’s just no freaking connection. So what if we do have electricity running through our bodies? How does that translate to a piece of metal round my neck “stabilizing electricity” (if “stabilizing electricity” even meant anything, which it doesn’t)? And why titanium? Wouldn’t copper conduct better?

It’s claimed these are being worn by 200 major leaguers and 80 percent of Japanese players. They sound like a pretty gullible lot, apparently rubbing snake oil on their arms and smearing mascara under their eyes too. Why do they do that, by the way? Anybody know? Someone told me it was to stop from being dazzled by reflected sunlight, but that doesn’t make sense either.

The NYT didn’t even suggest these things might not work, and I have to assume it’s because the article was tongue in cheek. Even so, I do believe Phiten® Titanium products mean us to take them seriously:

Phiten® Titanium products promote pain relief and performance enhancement. Titanium emits energy that is effective in controlling the flow of bioelectric current. When this current is stabilized, the muscles relax and blood circulation increases, allowing for easier movement and pain relief. All Phiten® products help relieve pain in muscles and joints by improving the alignment of ions, especially at the body's crucial motor points. Our product is also effective in the temporary relief of pain from bursitis, sciatica, tendonitis, certain types of arthritis and numberous other conditions.

Aaah, it improves the alignment of ions – of course, if ions are involved it must be real. Hey, I do believe this product would qualify for Randi’s $Million. Perhaps readers would like to Email Phiten to ask them if they want to apply? I’ll publish any replies here.

A little lower please, and tighter.

Lack critical thinking, go to jail

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” - Sherlock Holmes.

Wrong! - You can never know all other options, and you can never know they are impossible. 

In 1999, Sally Clark was convicted of murdering her two sons and was jailed for life. She served three years before being released on appeal in 2003. The expert testimony of Pediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow was instrumental in this conviction, as it was in the conviction of Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony and Trupti Patel for murdering their two, two and three children respectively. These three women were also eventually freed on appeal.

The children died due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), known as cot death in the UK. But Meadow testified for the prosecution that the odds of a child dying from SIDS were 1 in 8,543, and so the odds of two children from the same family dying from SIDS were 8,843 squared – or 1 in 72 million. The jury bought the idea that these odds were so astronomical the mothers must have murdered their children.

Anyone with a basic knowledge of logical fallacies would recognize this as a false dilemma – a limited number of options (usually two) are given, while in reality there are more options. Let’s suppose the odds of two children dying from SIDS by pure chance really are 1 in 72 million. Meadow and the jury made the mistake of assuming there were only two choices – chance or murder. They ruled out chance so it must be murder, right? Wrong, because there are at least two other options, for example: a genetic pre-disposition; or something in their home. There are probably others we don’t know about because you can never know all other options. It wasn’t chance that these children died, but that didn’t mean it was murder.

Critical thinkers would also note that no positive evidence was offered for murder, just negative evidence against SIDS. If you want to prove something true you must actually prove it true, not just claim that all alternatives are impossible, because you can never know all other options are impossible. This reversal of the burden of proof is a fallacy known as argument from ignorance - unless something (murder, in this case) has not been proven false, it must be true.

It’s mind-blowing that a jury didn’t see these logical errors, unbelievable that the defense attorney didn’t make the case for them and disgraceful that a prosecution could even be brought with such flimsy evidence. It gets worse - Meadow testified in the Patel trial after the law lords had already called his same evidence in the case of Cannings and Clark, “grossly misleading”. How did this happen? Meadow, with his long list of qualifications, was considered an authority on the subject, and prosecutors and jurors were in awe of him. And this neatly illustrates a third fallacy, argument from authority - even experts can be wrong; what counts are the data not the qualifications of the person presenting them.

Meadow is currently facing a General Medical Council hearing into charges of serious professional misconduct. Last week it heard he gave "misleading and flawed" evidence in Clark’s trial. He could be struck off if found guilty. 

A key tool of critical thinking is to know and understand logical fallacies: don’t rely on them yourself and recognize them in opposing arguments. It seems to me the application of critical thinking and recognition of fallacious reasoning in these cases could have prevented these innocent women from going to jail.

As for Sherlock Holmes, despite his reputation he really wasn’t much of a critical thinker. But that shouldn’t be too surprising: his creator believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Power cables reduce brain tumor risk

OK I was a bit naughty with the headline. The headline in the normally reliable Guardian Unlimited Life was “Power cables linked to cancer”, but I think mine describes the results of the study equally well. First, the sensationalist story:

Children living near high-voltage power lines are substantially more likely to develop leukaemia, researchers from Oxford University and the national electricity grid report today in the British Medical Journal.

Those living within 200 metres of the overhead cables were 70% more likely to develop the disease than similar children living more than 600 metres away.

Wow! 70% more likely to develop the disease! Predictably the chairman of Children with Leukaemia weighed in with the not really hysterical:

There is now a clear case for immediate government action. Planning controls must be introduced to stop houses and schools being built close to high-voltage overhead power lines.

“Immediate government action”? Really?  Of course, it helps if you read the actual study, which concludes:

The annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in England and Wales is about 42 per million; the excess relative risks at distances of 0-199 m and 200-599 m are about 0.69 and 0.23, respectively, giving excess rates of 28 and 10 per million.

By my calculation that puts the normal risk of getting leukemia at 0.0042%, rising to a whopping 0.007% if the child lives within 199m of power lines. That’s a pretty small risk not really conveyed by the “70% increase” headline. (Although I do agree that if you’re one of the five extra cases a year it’s 100% for you.)

The figures can be found in this table under the “leukaemia” column that shows 64 cases of leukemia in the 0-199 meter range compared with 39 in the control group. If you look under the CNS (central nervous system)/brain tumors column you will see the equivalent figures are 33 cases against 45 for the control – a reduction of 17% (hence my headline). Take just the figure for 0-49 meters and the headline could just as easily have been “Power cables linked to 56% reduction in central nervous system and brain tumors” – although that would have been equally misleading. There is no causal link for either statement and so it seems absurd to be calling for “immediate government action”.  As we know, correlation is not causation. That doesn’t mean there is definitely no link but it should give us pause.

If there is a link, could it be due to the magnetic fields created by the power lines? The researchers measured magnetic fields near the power lines, but noted that although the increased risk seemed to extend to at least 200 meters, at that distance the magnetic fields from the power lines were less than fields from other sources (appliances, house wiring etc), in the homes. Also, the increased incidence of the disease was noted right up to the 600 meter limit – much more than previous studies had found and way beyond any electromagnetic field from the lines. The study doesn’t support the view that increased risk is due to electromagnetic fields.

It may not be the power lines, but something about areas where power lines are located, or something about the people who live in these areas. It’s hard to know what, since the researchers did control for socioeconomic status, and found that had no effect on the relative risks.

The study concluded:

While few children in England and Wales live close to high voltage power lines at birth, there is a slight tendency for the birth addresses of children with leukaemia to be closer to these lines than those of matched controls. An association between childhood leukaemia and power lines has been reported in several studies, but it is nevertheless surprising to find the effect extending so far from the lines. We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields or association with other factors. Neither the association reported here nor previous findings relating to level of exposure to magnetic fields are supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism.

(My bold.)

There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the results. The results could be due to chance (for example, if the controls were not representative) or confounding. Even if the link is causal, only about 1% of childhood leukemia in England and Wales would be attributable to the power lines and even this figure has considerable statistical uncertainty.

The study does arrive at a result that can’t be explained, and so it is reasonable to call for more work to be done. Nevertheless, the headline and article seem a little scare-mongering.

Ionic Breeze

I’d often wondered about those Ionic Breeze air purifiers sold by The Sharper Image. Apparently they work by ionizing (electrically charging) dirt particles in the air which are then attracted to the oppositely charged collection blades in the unit. The charged particles stick to the blades and can be just wiped off. This always seemed too good to be true to me. And according to Consumer Reports magazine, it is:

Sharper Image’s Ionic Breeze Quadra Silent Air Purifier and four other similar machines fail to significantly clean the air — but also release potentially unhealthy levels of ozone.

The article is being published two months after San Francisco-based Sharper Image agreed to pay the magazine’s publisher, Consumers Union, $525,000 in legal costs after a judge dismissed its libel suit. The failed lawsuit alleged that earlier magazine articles highly critical of the Ionic Breeze’s ability to reduce airborne particles were false and malicious.

Apparently the “air ionization” process creates ozone as a by-product. Sharper Image’s attorney hit back with this hilarious appeal to popularity:

It is astonishing that Consumers Union would continue its misguided efforts to attack the judgment and experience of millions of Americans who are satisfied with the performance of the Ionic Breeze products

(FYI, Sharper Image’s full response.)

So this is an air purifier that not only doesn’t purify the air, but actually releases dangerous levels of poisonous ozone. Perhaps it should be renamed the Ironic Breeze.

No Fit

I just don’t get these TV ads for Nu Fit. This is the company that sells a shoe stretching device, a “50 dollar value for only $19.95” (if I call in the next five minutes, although the ad is repeated every 15). 

Shoes too tight? Insert the wooden shoe stretcher, turn the wheel and you stretch the shoe longer. Turn the lever and you stretch it wider. “I can now fit into all the hottest styles”, says one satisfied customer. Why? Don’t the hottest styles come in a size bigger? Am I the only one in the country who yells “why don’t you buy shoes that fit”, at the TV screen? I am. OK, perhaps I am. 

And it’s always $19.95, no matter what they’re selling. But the “value” varies. If I buy, say, the shoe stretching device, “a 50 dollar value for only $19.95”, am I getting a worse deal than, say, the leather repair kit, “a $60 dollar value for only $19.95”? I’m saving $10 less. Those bastards at Nu Fit are ripping me off! I’d like to know how many shoe stretching devices they actually sold for $50. My guess is zero. Ditto the leather repair kit at $60. According to Cargo Magazine the leather repair kit doesn’t work anyway, so perhaps Nu Fit isn’t such a bad deal. But only if you insist on buying shoes too small to start with.

Google me

I love checking the Google search strings people use to find this site. It tells me exactly what people are searching for, which articles they find in their searches and Skeptico’s ranking for that search. I click on a link and am taken to the actual Google results page they will have seen – a virtual window into their world, for a second.

Until two days ago, astrology was the most popular subject - more so than all the other subjects put together. Search strings have included: what do astrological signs mean, what does astrology mean, Geoffrey dean astrology 2005, against astrology, astrology science "born in", what do cpi mean in psychology, astrology is a load of crap (OK I made the last one up).  (For anyone finding this page who wanted to know about astrology, click here for the astrology tests.)

Today it has changed. Women’s breasts are now the number one subject. Strings include: ananova breast reveal personality, Lorenzoni shape breast, Lorenzoni breasts, Piero Lorenzoni breast theory, Piero Lorenzoni pictures breasts (several times). The world is obsessed with breasts, it would seem, and wants to see pictures of them if possible. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

And I am now number one on some Google searches. For example, you are now reading the number one site in the world for people who want to know about ananova breast size determine personality.

I’ve just had a thought. Listing all those search strings will probably raise my Google ranking even more. I didn’t mean it guys.