Pseudoscience

Yesterday I listened to D.J. Grothe’s interview with Ben Radford on the Point of Inquiry podcast about the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (November/December 2009) about “Skepticism 2.0,” the bottom-up grassroots expansion of the skeptical movement through Internet communications tools like blogs, podcasts, online videos and forums, and the real-world activities that have become possible through them, like meetups and SkeptiCamps. Near the end of the podcast, D.J. asked Ben what he thought would be the results of Skepticism 2.0 in five years time. He said (1) more skeptics and (2) more cooperative projects between the three major U.S. skeptical groups, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the Skeptics Society. That struck me as a rather disappointingly modest set of goals, as well as rather “old school” skepticism thinking, and insular. Surely we can come up with ideas for something more exciting, interesting, and useful than merely the self-perpetuation and growth of the skeptical movement and cooperation among the traditional top-down skeptical organizations over the next five years. A few thoughts that came to my mind: If skeptics want to promote public understanding of science and critical thinking, why not partnerships with other organizations that also have those purposes? The National Academies of Science, the National Center for Education, teacher’s groups and school groups at a local level? If skeptics want to promote the activity of science, why not look at ways to help motivate students to enter science as a career, and support them in doing so? I’ve previously suggested to Phil Plait that JREF might partly model itself after the Institute for Humane Studies, an organization which provides support for undergraduate and graduate students who favor classical liberal political ideals, in order to help them achieve success in careers of thought leadership, including academics, journalists, filmmakers, public policy wonks, and so on. In order for skepticism and critical thinking to have a significant impact, it’s not necessary that everyone become a skeptic, only that a sufficient number of people in the right places engage in and encourage critical thinking.If skeptics want to see more diversity in the skeptical movement, why not look at ways to reach out to other communities? The podcast did mention the SkepTrack at Dragon*Con, which is one of the most innovative ideas for outreach for skeptical ideas since the founding of CSICOP in 1976.If skeptics want to act as a form of consumer protection against fraud and deception, why not try to find ways to interact with regulators, investigators, politicians, and the media to get fraudulent products and services off the market? The UK complaints against chiropractors making false claims on their websites as a response to the British Chiropractic Association libel lawsuit against Simon Singh, or the Australian complaint against bogus claims by anti-vaccinationists (though see my comment on that blog post for some reservations) might suggest some ideas.It seems to me that the skeptical movement should be concerned about more than just increasing its own numbers and getting the existing national groups to work together. I think that Skepticism 2.0 has and will continue to force the existing groups to cooperate with each other and with the grassroots movement if they don’t want to become obsolete and irrelevant. And at this point growth is, at least for the near-term, a foregone conclusion. But in order to continue to grow and thrive, there should be some goals that have something to do with being useful and making the world a better place, by which the skeptical movement can measure its effectiveness and success. I’m sure readers of this blog have further suggestions. What else? Addendum: By the way, with regard to my first suggestion, here’s a question that may provide some motivation and food for thought: Why do the Parapsychological Association and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have better and more formal ties to official institutions of science than any skeptical organization? The PA is a member of the AAAS, and NCCAM is an agency within the National Institutes of Health. The main difference between those organization and skeptical organizations is that they actually do and publish peer-reviewed scientific research. ...

I’ve begun putting old issues of The Arizona Skeptic online as PDFs, starting with the old Phoenix Skeptics News, edited by Ron Harvey. Volume 2, 1988-1989, is here. An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here. Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 1, July/August 1987: Welcome!July MeetingResource Library"Cold Reading" by Jim LippardLocal Radio Talk Show Features PsychicsModem Users Take Note"Foes Turn Up Heat: Fire walking is not so hot, skeptics of seminars say" by Simon Fisher, TribunePostscript by Jim LippardBook ReviewsLocal Conference on Health FraudUpcoming Phoenix Skeptics MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 2, September/October 1987: August Meeting: Hans Sebald on witchcraftSeptember Meeting: Charles Cazeau on prophecies of NostradamusSurveyor NeededRandi on Faith Healers (interviewed by Jim Lippard and Mike Norton)"Health Fraud isn't 'snake oil' anymore" by Phyllis Gillespie, Arizona Republic"Charlatans can be spotted if you know common clues" (Arizona Republic)"Proper Criticism" by Ray HymanUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 3, November/December 1987: October Meeting: Halloween party at Hans Sebald'sNovember Meeting: James Randi psychic surgery video, Randy Jones on psychic surgeryPapers ignore disclaimer request on astrology columnsFlyers neededPsychic fair"Focus on You" by Jim Lippard"Channeling: Believe It or Not" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D."Book Review: The Faith Healers by James Randi" reviewed by Jim Lippard"On the distinction between nonbelief and disbelief" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D."Book Review: The Psychology of Transcendence by Andrew Neher" reviewed by Jim LippardEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 4, January/February 1988: December Meeting: Jim Speiser and Marge Christenson of MUFONJanuary Meeting: Robert Dietz of ASU on creationismPhilip Klass LectureSkeptics ReorganizedSkeptics subcommittees formed"Peter Popoff Came to Town" by Jim Lippard"Towards a more effective organization" by Bob Guzley"Update on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" by Jim LippardNew Phone NumberEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 5, March/April 1988: Important Announcement!February Meeting: Jeff Jacobsen on ScientologyPhilip Klass LectureMarch Meeting: Mike Stackpole on claimed dangers of D&DThe Organization Explained!"Frank Baranowski: Promoter of the Paranormal" by Jim Lippard"Book Review: The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson" reviewed by Jim Lippard"Robert Anton Wilson and the H.E.A.D. Revolution" by Zak WoodruffEditor's RamblingsUpcoming MeetingsPhoenix Skeptics News, vol. 1, no. 6, May/June 1988: April Meeting: James Lowell on Mexican cancer clinicsMay Meeting: Jim Lippard on psychic detectivesPress coverage"Turin Shroud Update" by Jim Lippard"Dr. Stranges Lives Up to His Name" by Mike Stackpole"Near-Death Experiences and TV" by Jim Lippard"An Artistic 'Phenom'" by Ted Karren"Psychic Detectives" by Jim LippardEditor's Ramblings"TUSKS Tips" by Ken MorseUpcoming MeetingsThe last issue of this volume was the first one also distributed to the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS), and prompted a change of name to The Arizona Skeptic beginning with volume 2. This was also about the time I moved to Tucson to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona (August 1988).

More on Zion Oil and Gas, a company tied to Hal Lindsey that picks sites to drill for oil based on misinterpretations of the Bible–and they’re looking in Israel. The Bronte Capital blog writes about the company as a counterexample to the claim that all oil exploration work uses mainstream old-earth geology, so now, to be accurate, you need to say that this is true of all successful oil exploration work. (I believe Uri Geller allegedly helped in some oil or mineral exploration in the past, so the former claim had already been falsified, though I think the latter still holds.) Bronte Capital notes that since Zion can claim that it is making its decisions based on constitutionally protected religious belief, that may be a defense against accusations of stock fraud. Zion’s stock trades on the American Exchange under stock symbol ZN. It has a market capitalization of $85.17 million, and closed last week at $8.00/share, near the bottom of its 52-week range ($5.07-$17.68). The company formed in 2000 and has offices in Texas and Israel. The company’s stock is, unfortunately, not available for shorting. Here’s a Zion promotional video: (Previously.) ...

As was mentioned last August by commenter Ktisophilos, Ian Plimer has a new book out on climate change, titled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, in which he challenges claims of anthropogenic global warming. Plimer is an Australian professor of geology who I criticized for his methods in debate with creationists, as well as for his reliability and accuracy. He responded by criticizing me with more misrepresentation in his book Telling Lies for God, which contained numerous errors, as well as multiple cases of failure to properly quote and cite sources that he used in writing the book. (The Creation Ministries International documentary for which I was interviewed, Facing the Fire, is about Plimer’s 1988 debate with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research.) It now appears that Plimer’s latest work is also extremely sloppy and contains erroneous source attributions. Tim Lambert at the Deltoid ScienceBlog identifies a long list of problems in the book by page number, points out the facts about Plimer’s misleading figure 3, which doesn’t originate from the source Plimer has claimed, and about another misrepresented source and graph. Some Christians who found Plimer to be worthless as a source on creationism as a result of my critique have nonetheless found him to be a worthwhile source on anthropogenic climate change, such as Bill Muehlenberg and some of the commenters at his CultureWatch blog. This strikes me as an inconsistent position–Plimer has demonstrated unreliability in both debates, and shouldn’t be relied upon as a source for either. That doesn’t mean to ignore what he says, or that everything he says is wrong–it’s just that everything he says needs to be thoroughly checked for accuracy. If it checks out, then it’s better to cite the original source, not Plimer. UPDATE (May 26, 2009): Commenter Paul points out a review of Plimer’s book by Barry Brook, which also includes a link to a point-by-point critique of the book by Prof. Ian Enting of the University of Melbourne (PDF). (This link has been updated as of June 1, 2009 to point to a location that will continue to maintain the most recent version of the critique, as per a comment below from Prof. Enting.) UPDATE (May 28, 2009): Bill Muehlenberg still appears to be refusing to publish contrary opinions from me, continuing his past record. I posted the following two comments on his blog, which he has not allowed through moderation: 1. Comment submitted on the evening of May 22, 2009: I am a critic of creationism and skeptic who challenged Ian Plimer’s methods and reliability in his criticisms of creationism (cited by one of your commenters above). I am sorry to say that Plimer’s methods and reliability continue to be unsound in his contribution to the climate change debate. For example, see the following two blog posts that document errors and falsehoods in his new book: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php I think that Plimer is mostly correct about creationism (it’s nonsense) and mostly incorrect about climate change (there are real trends that correlate with human activity), but given his record he shouldn’t be relied upon as a source in either debate without carefully checking up on everything he says.2. Submitted on the morning of May 23, 2009: Bill: I do hope you will let my comments through moderation. Here is another post from the Deltoid ScienceBlog about Ian Plimer misrepresenting one of his own sources: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.phpUPDATE (September 2, 2009): Plimer has descended further into irrationality in his exchange with George Monbiot. UPDATE (December 17, 2009): Plimer engaged in a debate, of sorts, with George Monbiot, on Australia’s “Lateline” program. Monbiot offers his overview of how it went. ...

In any event, the next Carolina sighting is only briefly detailed, sadly, since it sounds even more interesting than most. On the afternoon of 16 September 1904, in the countryside near Troutman, North Carolina, Mrs John B Lippard and her children saw "30 or more large snakes sailing through the air" over their farm. Each was about 5ft (1.5m) long and 4-5in (10-13cm) wide. "They watched the snakes sail around and alight in a piece of thickety pine woods... Most assuredly these people saw something." (Statesville Landmark, 20 Sept) Quoted from p. 34 of Jerome Clark, "Sky Serpents," Fortean Times magazine, #248, June 2009, pp. 30-36. UPDATE (12 September 2014):  There are, in fact, gliding snakes in the jungles of south and southeast Asia. Gridman (2009-05-09): Darn, that sounds like a good one. Pity I let my subscription to the Fortean Times lapse. Obviously they weren’t really snakes but it might have been a primitive form of UFO. I believe that before they setup the Sedona Vortex UFO re-energizing portal UFOs had to generate their own dimension power by undulating wildly. ...

Today is the big day for SkeptiCamp Phoenix, starting at about 12:30 p.m. this afternoon. Magic Tony, one of our presenters, will be live-blogging the event at his blog, and there may also be twittering at #skepticamp. No live video this time, but there will likely be video of at least some talks put online after the event, along with photos, presentations, and recaps. I received the t-shirts last night (the back of which is shown in the photo) and the official SkeptiCamp 2009 banner earlier in the week, and I’ve got boxes of Skeptic magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, and some books for distribution to participants. Thanks to the generous contributions of our sponsors, the Skeptics Society/Skeptic magazine, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and the James Randi Educational Foundation, who provided the materials and funds for the t-shirts (which will also defray a portion of our dinner tonight after the event at Tempe’s Rula BulaBoulders on Broadway). It looks like we’ll have about twenty people physically present at the event, and twelve or thirteen presentations, some 30-minute presentations and some 10-minute presentations. The current list of presentations: Tony Barnhart, Methods of the Pseudo-Psychic Abraham Heward, What’s the difference between skepticism and denial? (led discussion) David Jackemeyer, Henry Hazlitt’s Thinking as Science Don Lacey, Words Important to Skepticism (PowerPoint 2007) Jim Lippard, Positive Side-effects of Misinformation (SlideShare) John Lynch, Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design (SlideShare) Shannon Rankin, Skepticism for Dummies David Weston, Creating Skeptical Happiness (PowerPoint) Jack Ray, Skeptical Dating Mike Stackpole, Practical Techniques for Street Skepticism Charlie Cavanaugh Toft, Teaching Critical Thinking Xarold Trejo, Why I am a Skeptic SkeptiCamp Phoenix will be the first live-blogged SkeptiCamp event, and this is also the first day on which there will be two SkeptiCamp events in the same day–the other one going on today is SkeptiCamp Vancouver, which is occurring this afternoon at Langara College, with the sponsorship of the BC Skeptics. UPDATE (April 2, 2009): Don Lacey of the Skeptics of Tucson, who participated in SkeptiCamp Phoenix, offers his thoughts at the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Swift blog. ScienceBlogger and SkeptiCamp Phoenix participant John Lynch gives a recap at his blog. ...

Just as Conservapedia is often edited with parodies that even the real conservatives there can’t distinguish from conservatism (let alone everyone else), the global warming-denying Heartland Institute has mistaken a parody video for a real one, and briefly posted it on their site until they realized they’d been had. It was probably the traffic from Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog that tipped them off. This is a problem faced by ideological groups that search for evidence to support their established positions rather than trying to honestly evaluate the evidence. This isn’t the first time the Heartland Institute has demonstrated that this is how they operate, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Science writer Simon Singh (author of The Code Book on yesterday’s list of science books) is a columnist for The Guardian, for which he wrote a column critical of chiropractic titled “Beware the spinal trap.” The British Chiropractic Association sued him for the column, and it was withdrawn from the Guardian’s website. Svetlana Pertsovich has posted the offending column from Internet cache on her website in Russia, James Steinberg has posted it at his blog, and I’ve included it below. UK libel law is still in need of reform. Beware the spinal trap Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal Simon Singh The Guardian, Saturday April 19 2008 This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body. In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra. You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments. I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions. But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic. In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors. More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures. Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection. Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.” This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market. · Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial www.simonsingh.net UPDATE: The part about chiropractic-induced stroke is of interest to me, as I had once heard of a case of chiropractic manipulation leading to blindness. When I mentioned it at a dinner of skeptics in Tempe, Arizona in 1987 that included James Randi and Jim Lowell of the National Council Against Health Fraud, both of them suggested that this was impossible because the optic nerves don’t come anywhere near the spine. But nobody at the table (including me) thought about the possibility of spinal manipulation inducing a stroke causing damage to the visual system. This article from a chiropractic journal discusses cases of visual loss as a result of spinal surgery as a sort of tu quoque defense of chiropractic for similar problems, citing this article: Myers M, Hamilton S, Bogosian A, Smith C, Wagner T Visual loss as a complication of spine surgery. Spine June 15, 1997;22(12). So perhaps my remark from 21 years ago is vindicated? UPDATE (November 4, 2009): Simon Singh gave an overview and update on his case on June 3. Simon Singh fought against the libel claim despite the state of UK law, and has successfully won the right to appeal in October. UPDATE (April 16, 2010): Simon Singh won his appeal, and the BCA dropped their suit.

Kim Komando (who at least used to be based here in Phoenix) is promoting nonsense about “digital drugs”: But websites are targeting your children with so-called digital drugs. These are audio files designed to induce drug-like effects. All your child needs is a music player and headphones. Digital drugs supposedly synchronize your brain waves with the sound. Hence, they allegedly alter your mental state. Binaural beats create a beating sound. Other noises may be included with binaural beats. This is intended to mask their unpleasant sound. ...

Yesterday while getting my car serviced, I noticed that Toyota’s brochure about its latest vehicles says on the back that “Moving Forward is in our DNA,” and became annoyed. “X is in our corporate DNA” has become an incredibly popular marketing buzzphrase lately, and I’ve heard it said for some value of X in almost every vendor presentation I’ve heard this year. My thought yesterday was that I don’t really care if X is in the genotype if it isn’t expressed in the phenotype. If the company really wants to make the point that X is a core competency or value, saying “it’s in our DNA” isn’t really an accurate way of putting it. So this morning I did a search to see if any biologists have commented on this buzzphrase, and was pleased to see that Keith Robison commented on it last December: The question posed is this: what do companies asking this really mean, or more specifically what might it mean that they don’t intend (very Dilbert-esque). Presumably they are trying to make a statement about deeply embedded values, but what does it really mean to have something in your DNA? For example, do they mean to imply: A lot of our company is unfathomable to the human mindThere’s a lot of redundancy hereOften we often repeat ourselves often repeatedly, often repeating repetitiously.We retain bits of those who invade our corporate DNA, though with not much rhyme or reasonA lot of pieces of the organization resemble decayed portions of other pieces of our organizationSome pieces of our organization are non-functional, though they closely resemble functional pieces of related organizationsMost of our organization has no immediate impact on routine operations, or emergency onesMost of our organization has no immediate obvious purpose, if anyOur corporate practices are not the best designable, but rather reflect an accumulation of historical accidentsNow, many of these statements may well be true about a given company, but is that what you really want to project?This gives me some great ideas on how to respond the next time I hear a vendor use the phrase. ...