Skeptic's Circle #115
Yep, it's that time again. Head on over to Tech Skeptic to check out the newest entries into the coolest blog carnival this side of the Cat's Eye Nebulae.
Yep, it's that time again. Head on over to Tech Skeptic to check out the newest entries into the coolest blog carnival this side of the Cat's Eye Nebulae.
This blog has been around since 2005 and just recently passed 200,000 hits. This officially makes me an "F" level blogger at best, but I wanted to say a big "thanks" to anyone who has stopped by and read, had a laugh, got pissed off, left a nice comment, left a nasty comment, or wanted to either punch or kiss me.
I frequent a massage therapy forum on Facebook that posts articles, most with a skeptical, science-based bent to them. Recently, there was a link to a book review on Amazon for the title, Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine, by R. Barker Bausell.
Since we know only a fraction of a percent of how physics, chemistry and physiology work it seems pretty arrogant for someone to criticize effective therapies because the model the practitioner was taught is faulty. Every scientific model ever from Newton to Einstein has been proven wrong or adapted, that's how the process works. The implication that some branch of science or medicine is somehow 100% correct or informed is absurd.Firstly, I have to address what is known as an "argument from ignorance". This is a logical fallacy where someone says that because something is unknown or difficult to know, that it is impossible to know. In the above, the commenter's fallacy says, in essence, "we know only a fraction of a percent of how physics, chemistry and physiology work", therefore alt.med. is true. We (the royal "we", not including myself) know much more than "a fraction of a percent" of physics, chemistry and physiology and because of this, we can say with very near certainty that homeopathy, acupuncture, and other alt.med. modalities are ineffective.
Explain the placebo effect to me and we'll talk skeptic. Your life may be full of "facts" but it lacks the color and mystery mine has.
Cheers, good luck.
Indeed, as Bausell reveals, it is the placebo effect that accounts for most of the positive results. He explores this remarkable phenomenon--the biological and chemical evidence for the placebo effect, how it works in the body, and why research on any therapy that does not factor in the placebo effect will inevitably produce false results.Finally, the commenter drops the, "science unweaves the rainbow" argument. Skeptics are dull, boring, lack "mystery and color". We do not get New Age therapies and are jealous of the chakra-feeling, aura-seeing, light-ball-making healers that are everywhere, everywhere, man!
I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.Exactly.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.
At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure...also the processes.
The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.
It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are...why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
I have been remiss in mentioning the recent Skeptic's Circles that have been happening. The most recent is the 114th(!) and is over at Homologous Legs. It's well worth checking out. It's witty and the entries look interesting, so do yourself a favor and do some reading!
I'm often asked, like many skeptics who get into discussions about "alternative" medicine, odd beliefs, or the paranormal, about what the harm is when people hold beliefs that can't be backed up by reason or evidence. With "alt. med" it is often easy to explain the drawbacks of the uncritical view - most people know someone who has had to deal with a very serious disease like cancer. Once you explain something inane like homeopathy and its history, most folks will agree that it is potentially dangerous.
Witchcraft is there, even the Bible says in the time of Moses there were issues of witchcraft...I don't believe I can be bewitched because I believe in God and he is the one who is in control of the universe...This is a huge problem. When the people who are supposedly educating the population believe in nonsense, you end up with a whole lot of people buying into (obviously extremely dangerous) bullshit from a very young age. She apparently read the Bible closely because the only two times "witch" appears is in Exd 22:18 (the famous, randomly out-of-place, "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" line, and also in Deut 18:10-12 which says:
There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. (My bolding, here's the source)So being a witch, according to the damn Bible, should be handled by God himself, not by his followers. So sayeth the Book. Maybe she didn't read it all that closely after all.
You must watch this video. It's from 2006, something called the "Pathgate Summer Retreat". We'll talk after.
He turned into a weirdo...or maybe he was one from the get-go. Now we've got to put up with all the assholes giving their little stories and theories that don't matter worth shit. There's no forgiving child molestation, if he did it, but I'm not here to judge. I just remember the best Michael moment from my personal recollection:
From Deepak on Twitter:
E. Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in less than 6 words. He wrote “Baby Shoes, Never Worn.” Can you write a story in 4 words?Yep, I certainly can. "Deepak's research sucks ass." Jesus christ, he can't even get a fucking six-word story right. Hemingway was challenged to write a story in six words or less and what he came up with was: "For sale: Baby shoes, never worn." That should tell you the level of research to which Deepak has committed; he literally forgot a third of the story. When the whole story is condensed into six words, you really have to think that there's a lot of meaning tucked into those first two words.