Startled Disbelief

The Not-So-Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves

2012-01-31T00:00:00.003-06:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

I received the following message the other day from a close friend of mine.

Hi!

I saw this and for a moment was terrified until I remembered that I'm friends with YOU and therefore a much more rational person than I might otherwise be just by sheer proximity. Regardless, please remind me again that microwaves aren't destroying my baby and various loved ones.

http://truththeory.com/2012/01/27/the-dangerous-truth-behind-microwaves/

The link she provided was The Dangerous Truth Behind Microwaves by Mike Barrett of TruthTheory.com. Ah, EMF scare-mongering. It's been too long, old friend!

I didn't have much planned for the next few minutes (aside from playing some Super Meat Boy), so I dove right in.

The article is, as you might expect, riddled with misinformation. That misinformation, however, is crammed cheek-by-jowl with accurate statements, leading me to suspect that the author is guilty only of sloppy research, and readily accepted claims from both scientific and unscientific sources—with perhaps a modicum of cherry-picking thrown in. (This is borne out upon an examination of his source list, but we'll get to that later.)

How Microwaves Work

Let's start with the author's description of the process by which microwave ovens heat food:

In order for something to heat in a microwave oven, water must be present within the substance. If water is not present, heating will not occur and it would remain cool. The reason for this is that water molecules within the food vibrate at an incredible speed, creating molecular friction which is responsible for the heating of the food. The structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed. This is much different than any other method of cooking, as other methods such as convection ovens heat up food by transferring heat convectionally from the outside inward.

This description is almost correct, but is guilty of much hyperbole. First of all, it is not true that, lacking water, heating will not occur. What we're talking about is dielectric heating. While it's true that dielectric heating works best on water or substances containing water, it will also work on fats, sugars, and anything that contains electric dipoles.

Second, while stating that "the structure of the water molecules are torn apart and vigorously deformed" sounds scary, I've been unable to find any evidence that this occurs, and it's unclear what the dangers would be even if it did. While the molecules certainly do increase in kinetic energy (they move), the author seems to be suggesting that the molecular bonds are actually broken, which would cause the water to decompose into its component hydrogen and oxygen, as occurs in electrolysis. This is a fairly incredible claim that I've been unable to substantiate.

The Dangers of Radiation

The author admits that microwaves are not a form of ionizing radiation, although he stresses that non-ionizing radiation can still effect physical alterations. Sure! Like cooking stuff! He then says:

Other forms of ionizing radiation are visible light, ultraviolet and infrared waves, and waves emitted from televisions, cell phones, and electric blankets.

This is completely false. These are forms of non-ionizing radiation. While it is certainly possible that this was simply a typo, it remains irresponsible misinformation.

And then the real absurdity begins:

Although we've conducted study after study concluding that no amount of radiation is safe, we don't really know what all of this means in the long term.

I'm not even sure the author knows what he means, here. He seems to be conflating all forms of radiation, and then stating that the body of scientific literature on the subject concludes that there is no safe amount of any form of radiation.

Of course some amount of radiation is safe! If there were no radiation, we would be blind and we would freeze to death! Just lumping all spectra of electromagnetic radiation together is eggregious, irresponsible nonsense.

The author claims that "Tissues directly exposed to microwaves are subject to the same deformities molecules go through". This is very misleading.

Sure, microwave radiation can cause burns: that's why microwave ovens have doors on them specifically designed to block microwave radiation. You don't want to bathe your hand in high intensity microwaves for the same reason that you don't want to stick it in a campfire: it'll burn.

Now you might be worrying that your microwave door could be broken or cracked, and you're being exposed to dangerous invisible microwaves without your knowledge! Well, stop fretting. If this were happening, you'd know it pretty quickly, because the microwaves would literally be cooking your flesh, and that's something that we humans tend to notice.

Remember: microwaves are non-ionizing. They don't cause cancer: they cause heat.

"Microwave Sickness"

The author of the article then provides a laundry-list of nonspecific symptoms that he attributes to so-called "microwave sickness":

Impaired cognition
Nausea
Vision problems
Depression and irritability
Weakened immune system
Headaches
Dizziness
Insomnia and/or sleep disturbances
Frequent urination and extreme thirst

Sound familiar?

This so-called "microwave sickness" is just a repackaging of electrosensitivity syndrome, a discredited (and probably psychogenic) disorder that has been shown in controlled trials to no correlation (let alone a causal relationship) to EMF exposure.

Here's the list of symptoms attributed to electrosensitivity:

Fatigue and mental impairment
Poor memory and reduced concentration
Headache
Altered sleep pattern
Skin rash

And here are some of the (many, many) symptoms linked to so-called adrenal fatigue:

Excessive fatigue and exhaustion, chronic fatigue
Sleep disturbance, insomnia
Sensitivity to light
Difficulty concentrating, brain fog
Low immune function
Low blood pressure
Sensitivity to cold or frequent influenza
Anxiety, irritability, or depression
Reduced memory

Dr. Steven Novella calls these "the common symptoms of life". Talking about this purported adrenal fatigue, Dr. Novella notes:

Some of these people may have a real underlying disease, and can get distracted from pursuing a proper diagnosis by the offer of a simple fake one. Many people need lifestyle adjustments, and that is where they should focus their efforts – not on magic supplements to treat nonexistent syndromes.

And finally, just for fun, here are the purported symptoms of being attacked by a psychic vampire:

Leaky or diminishing aura
Dizziness
Loss of energy
Muscle tension
Mental confusion
Headaches
Chronic fatigue
Sleep disturbances
Irritability
Depressed mood
Physical illness

I'm convinced.

And while we're on the subject...

It's true that mobile phones, WiFi, etc. use radio waves in the microwave spectrum, but they are hilariously low-intensity. One of the ways that you can tell is that even the tiny bit of radiation that leaks out of a microwave oven is enough to interfere with wireless router traffic: and, as I said earlier, that's obviously not enough to do any damage.

Cell phones and WiFi, and their related impact on health, are heavily scrutinized, and there is no strong or even middling evidence linking these devices to health problems such as cancer. There are a small number of studies by a few fringe researchers which have failed reproduction by the scientific community. Many of these experiments have startling methodological flaws. Dr. Steven Novella has a great summary of some new research on the subject here.

Also worth noting: any case or covering that purports to block the EMF emitted by cell phones, laptops, etc. (and such devices are popular!) will fall into one of two categories: (1) it won't do anything; or (2) it will work, and your cell phone/WiFi will immediately stop working, because its signal is blocked.

So... keep that in mind.

The Nazi Connection

And this is where the author of this article really jumps the shark:

Microwaves were first invented by the Nazis in order to provide a method of cooking for their troops during World War II.

Godwin always makes me laugh. Also, I can find no evidence that microwaves were invented by the Nazis, and substantial evidence to the contrary.

The Sources

The author of this article has obviously taken no care in choosing his sources, which all seem to share strong (and fairly transparent) ideological convictions that bias them against good science. They are also uniformly hilarious.

Here are the websites linked to in the "Sources" section at the bottom of the article:

Relfe: "Valuable natural health, mind, spirit, financial and other information unifying the whole, rather than just educating a part of the whole." The main page contains multiple embedded Alex Jones videos, which describe in detail exactly how the government and the scientific establishment are trying to kill you.
The Library of Halexandria: "Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality." Need I say more?
Lita Lee: The website of "nutritionist" (and Ph.D. chemist) Lita Lee. She would love to sell you all sorts of herbal concoctions, so why not mosey on over?
Global Healing Center: An online pharmacy! Except it only seems to stock those shady end-cap items that cause pharmacists to hang their heads in embarrassment, saying "We don't decide what to stock, it comes from corporate." Lots of cleanses and detoxifying foot pads!
Natural Society: This site seems to be the evil twin of Skeptic North.

And here is a list of the peer-reviewed literature cited by the author:

That is all.

LUEE Episode 11: Alternative Marriage

2012-01-29T21:52:00.000-06:00

Episode 11: Alternative Marriage

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, host Laura Targownik discusses some secular and skeptical perspectives on non-traditional marriage with Ashlyn Noble, Jeff Olsson, and Anlina Sheng.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Winnipeg Sun "Editorial: Rainbow conniption over 'queer' pledge" | Winnipeg Free Press "Three's Company: Polyamory in Winnipeg" | Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan & Cacilda Jetha | The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Fundamentalism in Canada by Marci McDonald | Leaving Faith Behind by Jeffery Olsson

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

LUEE Episode 10: Hidden Meanings in Music, Part 1

2012-01-22T18:08:00.000-06:00

Episode 10: Hidden Meanings in Music, Part 1

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Leslie Saunders takes Paul Brown, Robert Shindler and Greg Christensen on a musical journey to find hidden meanings.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: 12 Days of Christmas | Musicam Sacram: Instruction on Music in the Liturgy | Backmasking

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

LUEE Episode 9: Communicating with People Who Believe Weird Things

2012-01-15T15:12:00.000-06:00

Episode 9: Communicating with People Who Believe Weird Things

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Gem Newman, Ashlyn Noble, Anlina Sheng, and Greg Christensen discuss how to approach someone with odd beliefs and whether or not it's okay to be a dick in the name of science.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Legal Challenge to Catholic Schools' Taxpayer Funding | Phil Plait's "Don't Be a Dick" | Greta Christina's "Why Are You Atheists So Angry?" | Intelligence² Debate: "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World" | The Winnipeg Skeptics Visit a Creation Museum | Gem Newman's "I Don't Debate Science" | Cut Onion Contamination on Snopes

Also on this episode, the first instalment of Where's My Jetpack? This week Old Man Newman asks, "Where's my jetpack?"

Where's My Jetpack? Links: Soar Over Water on Your Hydro Powered Jet Pack | Man with Jetpack Races Actual Jets | Jetpack (Wikipedia)

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

My Group Isn't Special

2012-01-09T23:04:00.000-06:00

I don't blog a lot about feminism, LGBT issues, racism, and the like, for several reasons.

First of all, as a beardy white dude*, my opinions on those subjects are likely to be less nuanced than those of others. Second, the more I learn about these issues, the more I'm forced to come to terms with the fact that I used to be an ignorant dick. I've been meaning to write a post in my "Stuff I Used to Believe" miniseries about the distorted perspective that I used to have on the subject of feminism, but with everything that has happened in the community lately the post has simultaneously grown and shrunk in scope.

There's so much to talk about, but there are so many others who are so much more qualified to discuss it. So if you want to know what I think about any given feminist issue, I recommend consulting Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight. Not because I "toe the line", but because I consistently find them to be insightful and thought-provoking, and where we disagree on topics of equality (which is rare enough that I don't care to rack my brains searching for an example) I usually later discover that I am in error.

But there was something that I heard on the most recent episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else that I couldn't let stand. Robert Shindler echoed a sentiment that I hear not infrequently (and often from men) in our group: that our group is special; that we don't have a sexism problem (and perhaps by extent any problem with equality). I've even said it myself.

Maybe it's true. I won't pretend to know. But that sort of sentiment can be harmful. If you think that your group is somehow special, it's easy to be blind to any problems that may occur. The biggest problem with privilege is how easy it is to be blind to it.

I am proud to be the organiser of the Winnipeg Skeptics, and I'm glad that we have relatively strong female and LGBT representation in our group. We could perhaps be better when it comes to racial equality, and I frankly have little idea what to do about that. As aware as I try to be of my own privilege, I'm sure that I still make my share of mistakes—and I hope that my fellow skeptics will do me the favour of calling me out if I slip.

I'm not trying to come down on Robert or anyone who has remarked that we don't have that woman problem that other groups have. Try not to hold your own group beyond reproach, because it may blind you to real issues that may arise. I'm not perfect, and we're not perfect. Our group may be better than most, but let's not get cocky! I'm sure that we still all have a lot to learn.

So instead of reading "Stuff I Used to Believe: Feminists Just Hate Men" (which I'll probably never write), go read Rebecca Watson's "The Privilege Delusion", Heina's "Beyond Jokes and Pick-Up Lines", and Greta Christina's "Why 'Yes, But' Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny".

And learn something. That's what skepticism is all about!

* (who also happens to be straight, cis-gendered, and fairly well-off)

LUEE Episode 8: Why Feminism Matters

2012-01-08T21:09:00.000-06:00

Episode 8: Why Feminism Matters

In this episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else, Richelle McCullough, Leslie Saunders, Ashlyn Noble and Robert Shindler discuss the relevance of feminism in Canada and why feminism should matter to skeptics.

Life, the Universe & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Economic Inequality in Canada | Being a Woman on Twitter | "Elevatorgate" | An Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Another Example of "Nice Guy Syndrome" | Manboobz | Sex Offenders and Lads' Magazines Use the Same Language

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

A Bit of Skepticism

2012-01-06T08:39:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Last month we received an email from the science editor at The Manitoban, the University of Manitoba's student newspaper. (You may remember The Manitoban as the paper that printed the hilarious "Keep Christ in Christmas" article that we discussed in the War on Christmas episode of Life, the Universe & Everything Else.) He asked us if we were interested in putting together a short article about the importance of science and critical thinking.

The editors at The Manitoban made minimal changes to the article that I submitted, which they titled "A bit of skepticism never hurt anyone":

I graduated from the University of Manitoba Computer Science department in 2007. Despite what my degree says, I’m not a scientist. I think of myself more as a “science cheerleader.” Science needs cheerleaders, because science is so important.

We humans tend to pay much more attention to those things that confirm our preconceived notions than to those details that don’t fit our theories. We have a marked tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses — presumably why Sylvia Browne remains so popular.

You can read the full article online, or you can pick up a copy of the newspaper at your nearest University of Manitoba. A PDF of the issue is also available for download or online browsing.

LUEE Episode 7: Geocentrism and Biblical Cosmology

2012-01-01T14:13:00.001-06:00

Episode 7: Geocentrism and Biblical Cosmology

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Richelle McCullough, Javier Hernandez-Melgar, and Gem Newman discuss how we know that the Earth is not stationary at the centre of the universe, and why the Bible is not a good source of knowledge about cosmology.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: In Which the World Revolves Around Robert Sungenis (Part 1, Part 2) | The Scriptural Basis for a Geocentric Cosmology | What is Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? | How Do We Understand the Coriolis Force? | Michelson-Morley Experiment (Wikipedia) | Sean Carroll's Cosmology Primer | Sean Carroll on Geocentrism | Phil Plait on Geocentrism

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

Correction: On this episode, I made an offhand reference to the fact that a 200C homeopathic dilution of Oscillococcinum is "like diluting a jug of milk in the Milky Way galaxy". When I listened to the episode after it aired, I realised that I'd made an error. What I had described is actually much closer to the standard 30C homeopathic dilution (it's about 33C). So what would a 200C dilution look like? Well, it's impossible to describe a 200C dilution in these terms, because there are insufficient atoms in the universe (by about 320 orders of magnitude, I might add). This is why homeopaths need to use serial dilution to make their potions.

LUEE Episode 6: Waging War on Christmas

2011-12-24T23:42:00.000-06:00

Episode 6: Waging War on Christmas

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Scott, Gem, Laura, and Jeff discuss the so-called War on Christmas. Happy Holidays from everyone at Life, the Universe, & Everything Else!

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Keep Christ in Christmas | Jeremiah 10:2–4 | Premier Brad Wall's Christmas Message | Secular Holiday Alternatives | Leaving Faith Behind

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

The Winnipeg Free Press Investigates Sports Bracelets

2011-12-20T10:55:00.000-06:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

In today's Winnipeg Free Press you'll find an article entitled Wrist management: Can trendy sports bracelets actually improve your game or are they glorified rubber bands? In it, you'll find a satisfying investigative report by Carolin Vesely on the subject of Power Balance and similar sports bracelets.

Photo by Bill Ebbesen (Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported)

I'll excerpt some of the good bits here, but please read the article if you're at all curious about the claims being made.

"That sounds like gibberish to me," [University of Manitoba kinesiology professor Todd] Duhamel says. Biofields can be measured, but "we don't know what everybody's biofield should be; there's no 'normal' biofield frequency" where we can say, 'Oh, you're at 47.7 hertz and therefore you're out of whack because you should be 49 hertz."

Wearing a watch or ring made of metal will also influence your electrical field, he says, but any ions or other electricity or radiation emitted would only penetrate to a depth of one or two skin cell layers. And it doesn't make sense, says Duhamel, that something worn on the wrist would affect how your legs work.

"I'd love to see scientific evidence. The fact that they're making claims about strength and balance but not making an actual health claim would tell me that they have no evidence that it actually affects the human body in any real, meaningful way."

Renny says iRenew should have results of its latest clinical studies on the website by the end of February. The tab marked "research" currently opens to an empty page, save for a photo of a muscled, braceleted young man hooked up to machines while running on a treadmill.

...

One of the main marketing tools used by the bracelet companies is a balance test. The test subject is asked to stand on one leg and hold his or her arms straight out to the side. The tester then pushes down on the arm on the same side as the raised leg until the subject falls off balance. The subject then puts on the bracelet and repeats the test -- without toppling over.

Gem Newman, founder of the Winnipeg Skeptics, has an explanation.

"It's a trick sometimes called applied kinesiology," he says. "The first time when they're pressing down on your arm, they're pulling very slightly away from your body. It's imperceptible to the subject, but they're pulling you off balance.
"However when they put the wristband on your arm or in your hand, they'll pull down on your arm again but slightly toward your body."

Members of his group exposed the "trickery" for visitors at this year's Red River Ex, where they happened to have their booth near a vendor of Energy Balance bracelets.

Anyone can test this out for themselves at home with a friend, says Newman.

"I'll usually do it with my magic iPhone."

When she was writing the article, Carolin Vesely contacted me about some of the claims these hucksters were making. I gave her a brief overview of some of the tricks they use to convince people that their balance or flexibility is improved, and tried to put her in touch with Richard Saunders of the Australian Skeptics. Unfortunately, the time difference apparently made it difficult to conduct a telephone interview, so you're stuck with me, instead.

For those interested, here's some news coverage from Australia that, while being rife with false balance and anecdote, does conduct a miniature blinded trial:

Because the claim isn't addressed in the video, I feel the need to point out that in the segment where flexibility is being tested by having a "skeptical" reporter twist at the waist, it's common for the subject to be able to twist around more fully on the second attempt than on the first, regardless of whether they're wearing a rubber band.

Credit where credit is due: Richard Saunders and the rest of the Australian Skeptics deserve high praise for the work that they've done combating the vigorous nonsense promoted by Power Balance and their imitators, so I'll give Richard the last word. Here he is demonstrating exactly how this so-called "applied kinesiology" trick works. It's easy to do, and I highly recommend trying it out for yourself!

LUEE Episode 5: Skepticism and Humanism

2011-12-18T14:52:00.001-06:00

Episode 5: Skepticism and Humanism

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Scott, Gem, Laura, and Jeff discuss what it means to be a skeptic and a humanist, and why organsations promoting critical thinking and science are necessary.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: The Humanist Association of Manitoba | The Winnipeg Skeptics | Cell Phones Still Not Linked to Brain Cancer (Study) | TEDxManitoba | Scam Everlasting | Top Ten Reasons Why Being a Humanist Is Fulfilling | Leaving Faith Behind

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

LUEE Episode 4½: Left Behind

2011-12-13T14:51:00.000-06:00

Episode 4½: Left Behind

In this bonus content that was cut from the first episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Gem, Robert, and Scott talk about Harold Camping's end of the world prediction. We're still here, so is it too late to ask for a refund on my rapture ticket?

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

Humanists, Skeptics "Attack" Youth for Christ

2011-12-13T12:25:00.002-06:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Jeff Olsson and I were interviewed yesterday by Michael Gryboski of the Christian Post (the most Christian of posts) for a piece he was writing on the subject of the Youth for Christ recreational centre that is preparing to open in downtown Winnipeg.

The article, entitled "Humanists, Skeptics Criticize New Youth For Christ Rec Center", has now gone live. This is what Jeff and I had to say:

Youth For Christ will soon be opening up a rec center in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which has stirred attacks from residents via the Winnipeg Free Press. Complaints ranged from a preference for a secular facility directed towards helping disadvantaged youth to concerns over it being built via government assistance.

"I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ," said Jeffrey Olsson of the Humanist Association of Manitoba to CP. "This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use."

Olsson compared the YFC facility to that of past efforts by Canadian Christian organizations to evangelize aboriginal children, which he said resulted in thousands of disaffected youth.

Meanwhile, Gem Newman of Winnipeg Skeptics said that while he did not oppose YFC establishing their center, he was concerned about the government involvement.

"Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth For Christ a megaphone for their religious message," said Newman.

Notwithstanding the fact that the author decided to characterise legitimate criticism as an "attack", I think that the article was fairly balanced; certainly more than I expected. Jeff and I were asked to respond to criticisms levelled against the centre in this Winnipeg Free Press article. Although we were only given a few sentences, I don't think that our positions were misrepresented in any way. All the same, some of our more cogent criticisms were not included in the final article. For that reason, I'll include the text of the interview here.

Do you agree with the concerns and criticisms published in the Winnipeg paper?

Jeff: I agree with the numerous criticisms being leveled at Mayor Sam Katz and Youth For Christ. I will explain below in detail.

Gem: I do. I'm always wary when a sectarian religious organisation is given government funds, because this results in undue entanglement between the religious goals of the organisation and the (presumably) secular goals of the government. It can result in the appearance of government endorsement of the religious or philosophical perspective of the organisation.

Do you know of any connections the rec center has to the state? That is to say, was it built with tax dollars, jointly operated by city council, etc.?

Jeff: The Youth for Christ center was built with federal and city money ... and was partially backed by private donations directly to the religious organization. It is completely controlled by YFC, with no city or federal direction being given for day to day operations.

Gem: To my knowledge, YFC has received [much] of its roughly $13.5 million budget from the government.

During the interview Jeff and I ballparked the amount of government funds that YFC received, but as we were on a very tight schedule I didn't have the opportunity to look it up until afterward. While it's tough to get an exact number, it appears that the centre received $3.2 million in federal funds and between $3.2 and $4.2 million in municipal funds, for a total of $6.2–7.2 million. The total cost of the project has been variously quoted as $9.6 million, $11.7 million, and $13.2 million. (Source, source, source. If any readers have access to more precise information on this subject, feel free to leave links in the comments.)

Specific details aside, it seems that the project is majority funded by federal and municipal tax dollars.

Do you believe that groups like Youth for Christ have good intentions? Do you believe they do much good for the communities they serve in?

Jeff: Of course YFC has good intentions. The central premise of their mission is that by bringing christ into the lives of youth, they will help to mentor and apostle youth and help them, to become better members of society. There is simply no evidence that this is true. There is evidence that drawing children further away from their parents, and removing them for their traditional cultural beliefs does damage as it divides the house hold on religious lines. Canadians have plenty of experience with this after the tragic residential schools program that forced 150,000 aboriginal youth into christian residential schools. This resulted in thousands of disaffected citizens, thousands of broken homes and a federal class action law suit against the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran and United churches, and the federal government costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The law suit was won and payments are currently being made to tens of thousands of former students. Point Douglas residents have politely raised this issue at public hearings for the YFC center, only to be dismissed. Government intrusion into the religious lives of Canadians is just not unacceptable. This Youth for Christ center is yet another example of government intrusion into private citizens religious lives because they have no other recreation center to use. They could have built and funded a small recreation center and everyone would have been ecstatic.

Gem: The youth in this area are at serious risk. While I find the idea of preaching to those who are vulnerable in this way to be distasteful, I recognise the rights of a religious institution to attempt to sway those to whom it gives aid toward its philosophical perspective. What I find most troubling, however, is that the government is effectively amplifying Youth for Christ's message. If the government had spent its [money] to build its own recreational centre, youth in the area would have two places they could go: a small sectarian centre and a large secular one. Instead, they have only a large sectarian centre, funded mostly by the government. Instead of providing the youth in the area with a place they can feel comfortable, whatever their religious or philosophical inclination, the mayor has instead effectively given Youth for Christ a megaphone for their religious message.

Jeff: A bit of history: Until YFC arrived, there was no recreation complex in Point Douglas, the poorest area of Winnipeg and this YFC center was put forth as an alternative by our Mayor, Sam Katz and federal officials. Area residents had asked government for funding for a small a recreation/sports centre with paid staff and they instead got the YFC center. Community leaders had also asked for more money for youth programs to be directed to aboriginal youth and monies for those programs are being diverted for the YFC center. The youth drop in centers I refer to were not religious in nature, anyone would feel comfortable there.

A large number of the residents in this area are aboriginal and follow traditional aboriginal teachings rather than Christianity. Winnipeg has a population of 675,000 people of which 72,000 are aboriginal. Point Douglas has the highest percentage of aboriginal people in all of Winnipeg and is one of the largest urban gatherings of aboriginal people in North America. Aboriginal religious leaders for the areas are very concerned that this center will have an undue religious influence on their youth, leading them away from traditional beliefs. Parents are worried that YFC's large multimedia stage will be used to send an overtly Christian message to any child who would attend a function at the center.

Meanwhile funding for aboriginal youth drop in centers has been dropped to at least two small organizations since the announcement for the new YFC center was made causing the, to close. Concerns have also been raised at other YFC locations in Winnipeg because the organization evangelizes aggressively, stopping sports events for a paid volunteer to lead "prayer time" and deliver a Christian message. Some youth who are not christian are pressured to participate in the ritual or be ostracized, where they have to leave while the message is being delivered. There is no simple way to opt out of the religious instruction. As president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba I have heard these complaints personally and I take such matters very seriously, especially when tax dollars are being used as a basis for funding.

Finally, there is the issue of tax dollars being used to Fund an evangelistic religious organization. This is a concern from a civil liberties perspective. Canada, is by definition multicultural we are not a "melting pot" as you are in the US.

Gem: I'm glad that the youth in the area have some place to go, but I think that government money is best spent on secular approaches to problems to avoid undue entanglement between religion and government. When I donate money to a charitable organisation, I want to know that it is going toward helping people in empirically demonstrable ways, rather than toward indoctrination. Canada already has a troubled history when it comes to religiously motivated mistreatment of aboriginal youth, and I'd hate to think that we haven't learned from our mistakes.

So, what do you think? Were Jeff and I totally off base? We're interested in hearing your thoughts about the article, what we had to say, and about the youth centre itself.

Edit: I amended the second paragraph above to include the title of the CP article, as several commenters on Facebook and the WS blog had assumed (because of the title of this post) that the title of the CP article was "Humanists, Skeptics Attack New Youth For Christ Rec Center". I used the word "attack" in scare quotes here because it had been used in the CP article to describe legitimate criticism of the youth centre. Sorry for the confusion!

News Items, etc.

2011-12-12T20:59:00.000-06:00

Between preparing my TED^xManitoba talk, participating in this new podcast venture, and a host of work- and family-related activities, it's been a busy few weeks for me. All the same, there are a few quick items I'd like to mention.

As the podcast finds its feet, you'll probably see a little less of me, because I'll be saving some of what I would normally say here for when we're on-air. I'll still be linking all of the episodes here (and on the Winnipeg Skeptics blog), and I'll pop up with some extra commentary from time to time as well.

Jeff Olsson of the Humanist Association of Manitoba and I were interviewed via email by a staff writer for the Christian Post this afternoon. We were asked for our thoughts on the subject of the Youth for Christ centre that was recently built in downtown Winnipeg (and billed mostly to taxpayers, I might add). I don't know what to expect from the editing of the piece, but once it goes live I'll share the full text of the interview with you here.

Also, Michael Kruse of Skeptic North recently provided the readers there with an excellent summary of a recent systematic review of the evidence linking cell phones and cancer. Spoiler alert: there isn't any.

LUEE Episode 4: Skepticon 4 Recap

2011-12-04T19:46:00.003-06:00

Episode 4: Skepticon 4 Recap

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Mark, Leslie, Scott, and Robert talk about the highlights of Mark's trip to Skepticon 4 in Springfield, MO. You can learn more about Skepticon 4 by visiting their website or by watching the talks that have been made available on YouTube by Hambone Productions. If you're interested in hearing more about the Winnipeg Skeptics' visit to our (now defunct) local creation museum, you can do so here.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: Skepticon.org | Hambone Productions | Creation Museum Visit

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

A Plague of Antivaxxers

2011-12-01T13:28:00.000-06:00

The Winnipeg Skeptics' own Richelle McCullough has written an excellent piece for Skeptic North. You should go read it!

Here's an excerpt:

Habakus and Holland dramatically assert “vaccination choice is a fundamental human right,” not as the first sentence in their book, but the first chapter’s title. You can’t miss it. Autonomy, the idea that we have the right to choose what is best for ourselves, is a fundamental human right, they argue, and therefore the right to choose whether we vaccinate is also a fundamental human right. And, although I find their shock tactics distasteful, I can’t argue with them. I agree that lining up the entire population of the world and giving them a shot in the arm without ever telling them what or why or obtaining their permission would be morally wrong.

But that exact same argument can be used to utterly defeat their position.

Allow me to explain. Autonomy hinges on two words that most people have heard but few truly understand: informed consent. It’s the idea not just that you agree, but that you grasp the entirety of the situation, its consequences, the different options you can choose, the risks of the scenario with actual context for what those risks mean, as well as a complete understanding of the benefits. Informed consent ensures everybody is on the same page and knows where things are heading and why. It’s something that is rather unique to medicine – typically when you sit down in a restaurant, your server doesn’t inform you that there is a 1 in 2,000 chance that your food has come into direct contact with rats or that it’s possible but unlikely that you could be fatally wounded by a falling serving tray over the course of your meal, or that, if you wanted, you could put off your meal to another time when you were more hungry.

Well said, Richelle!

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 3

2011-12-01T00:00:00.010-06:00

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 1
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 2

SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.

Scientific Spirituality

Dr. Ali Ashtari obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Electrical Engineering from Sharif University of Technology in Tehran, Iran, and his Ph.D in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Manitoba. He currently holds a post doctoral fellowship at the University of Manitoba. He describes himself as a "militant atheist", and has recently developed an interest in meditation and the scientific study of spirituality.

Science & Media: A Love Story

Richelle McCullough is a medical student at the University of Calgary and is graduating with a Masters degree in Physiology from the University of Manitoba this spring. She blogs at Subspecies and for the Winnipeg Skeptics, and is proud that she is frequently trolled by people who think that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Realities and Myths About Sex Work

Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a sex-workers' rights advocate.

How to Change Minds

Mike Innes is former born-again Christian, and is now a passionate activist for skepticism and equality. He is the father of two boys, and he spends much of his time building more computers than he knows what to do with. The text of this presentation is also available on the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

LUEE Episode 3: What's the Harm?

2011-11-29T17:06:00.001-06:00

Episode 3: What's the Harm?

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Laura, Richelle, Scott, and Gem talk about the harm caused by alternative medicine. Do not be fooled by snake oil!

Although our panel neglected to mention it during taping, we must give a huge shout-out to Tim Farley, creator of WhatsTheHarm.net. So if someone ever asks you, "But what's the harm?", feel free to send them to listen to this episode of the podcast—but first, send them to WhatsTheHarm.net!

You can find the Uniter article about chiropractic discussed in the episode here. The full text of the interview with Richelle and Gem is available here.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Links: WhatsTheHarm.net | Uniter Article | Full Chiropractic Interview

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

LUEE Episode 2: Religion and Skepticism

2011-11-20T21:28:00.000-06:00

Episode 2: Religion and Skepticism

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Gem, Ashlyn, Scott, and Robert talk about their experience with religion and the relationship between religion and skepticism.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

LUEE Episode 1: The Hallowe'en Show

2011-11-20T21:02:00.002-06:00

Episode 1: The Hallowe'en Show

In this episode of Life, the Universe, & Everything Else, Robert Shindler, Ashlyn Noble, Gem Newman, and Scott Carnegie sit down to discuss some popular myths about Halloween and the real-world origins of popular movie monsters. This first episode is a little rough at times (mostly because I wouldn't shut up); we're still finding our feet.

Life, the Universe, & Everything Else is a podcast celebrating science and skepticism presented by the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba.

Contact Us: Facebook | Twitter | Email

Listen: Direct Link | iTunes | RSS

Clue!

2011-11-15T17:00:00.001-06:00

This post has nothing to do with science, skepticism, or atheism, so feel free to ignore it.

As mentioned briefly in my previous post about alternative medicine killing off several species of rhino, a group of us went to a Hallowe'en social last month dressed as the gang from Clue.

I also threw together some Clue cards for us.

We won Best Group Costume, so we must have done well enough.

Potent Nonsense

2011-11-12T12:00:00.003-06:00

Pseudoscience has teamed up with erectile dysfunction to wipe several species of rhinoceros off the face of the earth.

A dead Javan rhinoceros. Public domain image courtesy of Wikipedia.

From the Telegraph:

The International Union for Conservation of Nature, which publishes an annual 'red list' of endangered species, said the Western Black Rhino could soon be joined by the Northern White Rhino of central Africa which is "possibly extinct" and the Javan Rhino which is "probably extinct." Though overall numbers of black and white rhinos have increased, the three subspecies are particularly vulnerable owing to a lack of political will in their habitats and poachers who target their valuable horns which are used in Asian medicine.

When this article first appeared, I linked to it on Facebook, with the title, "Fuck you, Traditional Chinese Medicine."

An acquaintance from my dinner theatre days (with whom I've always been on friendly terms) took umbrage. What follows is a transcript of the short discussion that ensued.

Brandi: The sad part is, western medicine and antibiotics kill and harm ALOT more animals than chinese medicine will ever do. And to add to that, western medicine also kills human beings. Just a way of looking at the other side of things!

Gem: Good to know where you stand on the whole real medicine versus fake medicine thing.

Brandi: Lol my comment was not meant to be offensive or opinionated but rather to shine a light on the subject. Facebook is tough for that!! I do not agree with senseless killings. People could argue for days about what medicine is real and what medicine is fake but the key is education and as I mentioned, there are certainly outs to allopathic medicine as much as anything else. I always say, you bring me your research and I'll do the same! Only then can one really get into it;)

Gem: Bring you what research? I don't do medical research, and I'm not qualified to evaluate it. Luckily, we have physicians and medical researchers whose expertise lies in just those areas. I'm certainly always interested in learning more about so-called "alternative" medical practices, [but] citing a positive study or two is unlikely to persuade me of efficacy, because cherry-picking is rampant in the alt-med community and I understand what a p-value is and I recognise that we expect the occasional false-positive. Not only that, but alt-med studies tend to be poorly blinded and controlled. I suggest that if you're interested in learning more about science-based medicine, you visit http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/.

The fact that you use the absurd and discredited term "allopathic" to describe modern scientific medicine illustrates your biases on the subject. This pejorative term was coined by arch-quack Samuel Hahnemann to distinguish the (in many ways prescientific) medicine of his day from his new (and absurd) "homeopathy". (For more on the subject of homeopathy, feel free to read this: http://www.startleddisbelief.com/2010/04/winnipeg-skeptics-presentation.html.) Hahneman asserted that allopathic interventions were those that treated the symptoms, rather than the cause, of the disease. Most science-based medical treatments today do not conform to this definition, because they either seek to prevent illness or they remove the cause of an illness by acting on the etiology of disease.

Occasionally, remedies that were once labelled "alternative" are integrated into science-based medicine—but this should happen only after a large body of medical research has demonstrated that the intervention is effective to a reasonable degree of certainty. And it's always important to consider each study in the context of the entire body of the medical literature. To quote the wonderful comedian/musician Tim Minchin, "By definition ... alternative medicine ... has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

Brandi: Lol clearly you have decided to take this much further than it needs to go:) There are plenty of scientific studies to support every field of medicine. I understand how to read them and I can tell you by the abstract alone whether it's even worth reading the entire study, or if it's a waste of time:) It's nice to see you take an interest in the subject as well, hopefully you didn't need to fork out the thousands of dollars that I did for the education:) I would like to say that using words like "absurd" to color what I have said, clearly states you are not up for the open minded discussion that I was after. I'm always interested in facts and any science to back them up, however I've also learned that it's really not about a cold competition when there are so many things to learn on all sides. I'm sorry to have sparked such a battle, that was not my intention, clearly it's not something you take lightly. Nor do I:) So let's leave it here? If we ever run into each other I think the topic would make for some good conversation!!! Hope you are doing well and kudos on the Clue (party?) that was awesome! Was that for Halloween? And who's idea was it? Good stuff!!!!

Scott: ‎"western Medicine" aka scientifically-shown-to-work-medicine is backed my empiracal evidence. If Chinese medicine doesn't kill people directly it's probably because it doesn't actually do anything, so it would kill people directly in the fact that whatever health issue the person has isnt actually being treated.

Scott: Either a treatment has.

Gem: I'm not being "closed-minded" or dogmatic about this, Brandi. I will gladly change my mind about any given intervention when large, reproducible, randomized, well-controlled studies can consistently demonstrate efficacy. That's called being intellectually honest.

And if you don't consider homeopathy absurd, I would wager that either (a) you don't know anything about it or (b) you have some sort of vested interest in it. It is mathematically hilarious and the body of the medical literature demonstrates that it works no better than placebo.

Gem: Brandi seems to have deleted all of her comments. Interesting.

You'll note that I ignored her offer to move the discussion on to a more friendly subject, which I'd imagine was what prompted her to stop responding and delete all of her comments. And fair enough; she doesn't owe me a response! But I think that this is a very important subject, and I was unwilling to be derailed.

Scott later pointed out to me that not only does she work at a health food store (that's fine, I suppose), she's also attending the Canadian School of Natural Nutrition. As I'm married to a Registered Dietitian (you know, one of those science-based nutritional experts) and I'm a nutritionist myself (not that that means anything) I find quack colleges such as these distasteful.

And yes, in case you're wondering, that's the same Scott who blogs for the Winnipeg Skeptics and who co-hosts our new podcast, Life, the Universe, and Everything Else (Facebook, iTunes).

Luckily, I still had the comment thread open on one of my other computers when Brandi deleted her comments, so the discussion is preserved here, in case there's anything to be learned from it.

The bottom line is that these animals almost certainly would not be dead if it weren't for the idiotic notion that rhino horns (and other phallic objects) can aid those suffering from erectile dysfunction. Even if it were true (it's not!), it would still be horribly unethical to kill these animals for their horns.

Announcements!

2011-11-10T12:04:00.003-06:00

I'm honoured to announce that I'll be speaking at TED^xManitoba this winter!

It's difficult to express in words how excited I am to be participating in a TED^x event! My talk is still under wraps, but you can rest assured that it is related to science and skepticism.

While I'm here, I might as well let you know about an upcoming podcast! Life, the Universe, & Everything Else will be a coproduction of the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Humanist Association of Manitoba, and will focus on science, skepticism, and secularism, with a focus on Manitoba. I'll be sure to post links to episodes here when they start going live.

Also, here's a link to something funny. (Hat tip to Phil Plait for that one.)

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 2

2011-10-18T12:00:00.001-05:00

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 1
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 3

SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.

Polyamory and Mononormative Assumptions

Anlina Sheng is a freelance graphic and web designer, a feminist, and a polyamory activist. For more information about polyamory in Winnipeg, visit PolyWinnipeg.org.

Perpetual Motion and Free Energy... Science or Pseudoscience?

Javier Hernandez-Melgar is a student at the University of Manitoba, pursuing a joint honours degree in math and physics.

Evaluating Rational and Emotional Arguments

Brendan Curran-Johnson is a software developer, unrepentant geek, and incorrigible satirist.

You're Paying for This Bigotry

2011-10-12T11:17:00.001-05:00

So apparently many religious, publicly-funded schools in Manitoba are horrendous, bigoted institutions that attempt to indoctrinate children into a hateful, narrow-minded, anti-science philosophy. So, there's that.

Hat tip to Eric Legault.

Thoughts on Steve Jobs

2011-10-08T13:18:00.000-05:00

So, as you may have heard, Steve Jobs is dead. I was slightly disappointed to hear that, because I did see him as somewhat innovative. I wasn't surprised, however; we knew it was coming. I was annoyed when the kooks started crowing that he was another casualty of science-based medicine (further discussion here), but this, too, was not unexpected.

I have a MacBook Air running OSX Lion, and I love it. But I also have a desktop that dual boots to Ubuntu 11.04 and Windows 7. And that giant, glowing Apple logo on the back on my MacBook annoys the hell out of me, because of the way it seems to be taken as a status symbol and a fashion statement.

I own an iPhone 3G, and I got up at 05:00 yesterday to preorder the new iPhone 4S. But I jailbreak my iPhones, because although I like the hardware and the OS I'm not willing to let Apple dictate how I use my own property. And I don't intend to stop jailbreaking, even when Bill C-32 makes it illegal to do so this winter.

So that's where I'm coming from when it comes to Apple: I like many Apple products, but I don't much care for Apple as a company. That's probably why I was so intrigued by Adam Cadre's comments about Apple and about Steve Jobs. They differed widely from the run-of-the-mill eulogising that I've seen on the Internet for the last few days.

People always used to complain about Microsoft's monopolistic practices, but Apple, I discovered, was far worse. I use a Microsoft operating system on a Dell computer which is hooked up to a Unicomp keyboard and a Logitech trackball and from which I use a Mozilla browser to go to Amazon and buy music which I transfer to a Shenzhen Zhanyue MP3 player. Apple wants me to use an Apple operating system on an Apple computer which is hooked up to an Apple keyboard and an Apple mouse in order to use an Apple browser to go to an Apple store and buy music to transfer to an Apple MP3 player. And it will use any of those entry points to try to strongarm people into signing up for the whole package. Now, you might say, what's wrong with that? That's capitalism! To which I would reply, exactly. Apple exemplifies the fact that underlying capitalism is the philosophy of the cancer cell.

The second thing that turned me against Apple was its dealing with Apple Corps, the media company founded by the Beatles in 1968 — eight years and three months before Apple Computer. In 1978, Apple Corps filed a trademark infringement suit against Apple Computer, which settled up by paying Apple Corps $80,000 and promising not to enter the music business. Apple Computer then went right ahead and entered the music business — became the world's leading music company, in fact. And, yes, further settlements were reached that made this retroactively agreed to. But, well, you've heard the saying that "it's better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission"? You know who says that? Assholes say that. If you've made a promise not to enter the music business, and you then plunge into the music business on the theory that with the money you generate you can pay off the people you've wronged, you're acting like an asshole. And you can say, hey, that's capitalism... to which I would reply, exactly. Apple exemplifies the fact that capitalism rewards those with the fewest scruples.

Seriously, read the whole thing. It's worth it.

It seems that Ben Cochran is a terrible person.

2011-10-05T12:00:00.001-05:00

Source.

I hope that the outcry teaches him something. Given his response to the criticism, however, I'm inclined to doubt it.

Skeptical News Roundup!

2011-10-04T12:00:00.009-05:00

Some quick hits, cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog!

Steve Thoms from Skeptic North has posted an excellent summary of the WiFi scare, detailing why you shouldn't worry too much about EMF.

This wonderful Pharyngula post was recently nominated for the 2011 edition of The Open Laboratory. This provides me with an excuse to link to it, which I've been meaning to do for months. Give it a read. Seriously, it's excellent.

Diana Goods of the Humanist Association of Manitoba wrote a nice letter to the editor explaining why Steinbach's newest megachurch isn't anything to get excited about. Hat tip to Jeff Olsson.

Also from Pharyngula comes the tale of this new lunacy from Orson Scott Card. Apparently Card's 2008 rewrite of Hamlet depicts the ghostly king as an evil paedophile who turns everyone gay. I'm not making this up.

And finally, on a lighter note, Felicia Day linked to this on Google+:

Also, these watches are awesomely geeky. That is all.

Happy Blasphemy Day!

2011-09-30T09:16:00.000-05:00

Happy Blasphemy Day, everyone! Today is the day that we attempt to educate the public about the importance of freedom of expression, even opinions that may prove offensive to religious people.

If my speech offends you, that does not grant you the right to threaten or murder me. However, Section 296 of Canada's Criminal Code does prohibit Blasphemous Libel, so I encourage you to pursue that avenue of oppression if you so choose.

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 1

2011-09-29T20:21:00.003-05:00

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 2
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg 2011: The Videos, Part 3

SkeptiCamp is an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking. For more information please visit SkeptiCamp.org.

Logical Fallacies (A Spoonful of Sugar)

Paul Nordin is a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics and the Winnipeg Secularists. He is currently majoring in philosophy at the University of Winnipeg.

Free Will: What is it? and Do we have it?

Gem Newman graduated with distinction from the University of Manitoba with a B.Sc. in Computer Science, specialising in Artificial Intelligence. He founded the Winnipeg Skeptics in 2010, and more recently he co-produced a short documentary called "The Nonbelievers' Beliefs" with fellow skeptic Scott Carnegie. He blogs at WinnipegSkeptics.com, StartledDisbelief.com, and occasionally at SkepticsOnThe.Net.

Denialism

Jeff Olsson is a former Anglican priest and the current president of the Humanist Association of Manitoba. His book, Leaving Faith Behind, is available on Amazon from Xlibris. The Humanist Association of Manitoba can be found at mb.humanists.ca.

Free Will: What is it? and Do we have it?

2011-09-17T11:00:00.124-05:00

What follows is a transcript of my presentation from the Winnipeg Skeptics' second annual SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, an open conference celebrating science and critical thinking.

Free Will: What is it?

So what is free will? Well, it depends who you ask.

Free Will: Three Views

I'll briefly sketch outlines of three views of free will in this presentation.

The first is that of "Libertarian Agency". While many off-the-cuff definitions of free will seem to quickly descend into tautology, by far the most cogent definition of free will that I've come across was offered by Apologist J.P. Moreland.

The second position that I'll discuss (the dissenting view) is the determinist position. In brief: we do not have free will.

Finally, I'll take a moment to introduce the compatibilist position, which states that determinism can be reconciled with free will. This is the position taken by many modern naturalist philosophers, such as Daniel C. Dennett.

Libertarianism

[Insert Ron Paul joke here.]

In his essay "Naturalism and Libertarian Agency", Moreland describes his "libertarian" view of free will. He insisted that our actions do not have prior causes: you are the ultimate cause of your own actions. You can initiate and/or stop yourself from initiating any action. We are all "little gods", "unmoved movers".

Now, you may ask why I'm citing an apologist to define free will. Well, theologians tend to spend a lot of time thinking about free will, as it is central to theodicy and many other works of apologetics. I'll be dealing primarily with libertarianism for the purposes of this talk, but I'll briefly discuss a different, compatibilist view of free will later on.

Libertarian agency is also called contra-causal free will, because it holds that our decisions are not bound (or "determined") by a causal chain of events. However, if our minds (and therefore our decision-making processes) are entirely the product of our brains (which are made of matter), it is difficult to imagine how our thoughts could be completely free, or causally unbound. For this reason, free will is often linked with dualism. Within this framework, the "soul" or "spirit" (which is not composed of matter, and is therefore freed from causation) is the "free agent" in decision making.

Free Will: Do we have it?

"Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
—Arthur Schopenhauer?

Einstein attributed this to Schopenhauer but, as often happens, it seems that the original source is slightly less pithy.¹ Regardless, it certainly captures the sentiment.

Do we have free will? I don't think so. Not the libertarian kind, anyway.

Laplace's Demon

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at any moment knew all forces that animate Nature and the mutual positions of the beings that comprise it, if this intellect were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes."
—Pierre-Simon Laplace, A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities

Determinism

Determinism holds that we live in a causal universe, and that we are not somehow exempt from that web of causality. Our thoughts and deeds are fully caused. Our decisions are the effects of prior causes, and the causes of future effects.

Put simply, determinism is the position that your choices, like all other aspects of the macroscopic universe, have causal antecedents; that is to say, given the same options and the same set of preconditions, you will always make the same choice.

But we still make choices. If you're at the café for lunch, and you decide to get a regular Pepsi instead of your usual Diet Pepsi, there was a reason for that: probably many reasons, that all came together in that one decision. In fact, the question, "Why did you do that?" really only makes sense within a deterministic framework.

Remember: determinism doesn't say that you're some sort of mindless automaton with no mental life. You still deliberate over choices, your past experiences still play a role, you'll still sometimes make snap judgements based on your emotions instead of thinking things through—but all of these factors are fully caused, and causally affect your decision-making process in turn.

Determinism does constrain you, but it only constrains you to act within your own character—which, upon reflection, doesn't seem so bad.

The Process of Deliberation

Within the deterministic framework, your decision may be influenced by a multitude of factors. Some of these factors may be consciously recognized, while you may be completely unaware of others. Regardless, from the determinist perspective, your decisions are the result of a calculus. A whole bunch of variables go in, and a decision comes out.

Let's contrast this with contra-causal free will: you are waiting to cross the street, and the light says "Don't Walk". Perhaps you're running late for a meeting, perhaps you've been standing in line all day and you're feeling impatient, and perhaps you were recently issued a citation by a police officer for jaywalking. Does any of this factor in to your decision to cross against the light? If you're a "libertarian agent", the answer must be "no" (or at the very least, "not necessarily"). If you are an unmoved mover, you simply choose.

In many ways, a free choice is a meaningless choice.

When you're weighing your options, this is a deterministic process. In fact, "weighing" one's options is an excellent analogy for the way decision-making works within a deterministic framework.

Even though it might seem like a close call, 30 grams of lead and 15 grams of gold will always weigh more than 5 grams of silver and 35 grams of copper. If you weighed them a second time, could things come out differently?

I'll expand a little on the example that I used earlier (which I stole from the guys at Reasonable Doubts, by the way). Let's say you're ordering lunch, and you're trying to choose whether you're going to have a Pepsi or a Diet Pepsi. Your decision may be influenced by how you're feeling about yourself, by whether your spouse has recently made a comment about your waistline, by whether you have a strong dislike for the aftertaste common to diet sodas, by whether you suffer from diabetes or chronic hypoglycaemia, by whether you have a sweet tooth, by whether your father used to drink a Diet Pepsi while he worked on the car, by whether you just saw a magazine with a really slim model on the cover, or by whether you've decided that aspartame (or high-fructose corn syrup, for that matter) is part of a secret government mind-control project.

Do we have options in a deterministic universe? Does it make sense to say that you chose the Diet Pepsi over the Pepsi? Doesn't that imply that things could have worked out differently?

Well, in a sense, things could have worked out differently&mash;had a different set of contingencies been in play. When choices or options are presented to us, we don't necessarily know which we will choose, but that doesn't make our choice free from causal influence.

Imagine that you are standing before a door. You might say, "Maybe there's a person behind that door." Either there is or there isn't; only one of those propositions is true, and which is true has already been determined. Your statement, "Maybe there's a person behind that door," reflects only your ignorance of which of these options has been determined. Similarly, "Maybe I'll have the Diet Pepsi," doesn't have to reflect "real" options; it may simply reflect your own uncertainty about which option you will eventually choose.

The Evidence for Causal Determinism

"Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots."
—Giulio Giorello

Although they are not without their critics, the studies of Haynes and Libet have provided evidence that decisions that we think we're making are actually made before we're even aware of them. This suggests that the "choice" that we consciously experience may be more a self-report, an epiphenomenon.

There is also a significant body of evidence from the field of psychology showing that our decisions can be predictably, causally affected by psychological priming and by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

There is also the case of Phineas Gage, a nineteenth century railway foreman who was seriously injured on the job. In an accidental explosion, he had a steel rod blown in through one eye and out through the top of his head. Although he survived, his personality and behaviour were severely affected. According to the attending physician, he became profane and impulsive.²

This handful of examples serves to demonstrate that our decisions are not freed from the web of causation.

And where does does this leave libertarian free will? To again quote Laplace, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."

Common Objections to Determinism

"If determinism is true, our concepts of morality and justice are meaningless! We would have no responsibility for our actions!"

There are two main problems that I have with this objection. First of all, it isn't true. While it may be that we can't assign ultimate blame to people for their actions, even actions that we may find morally repugnant, there are several ethical systems which don't rely on assigning ultimate responsibility to the actors involved (consequentialism, for example, or even virtue ethics).

As far as justice goes, while a punitive system of justice makes no sense within a deterministic framework, a correctional system does. We can also focus on the prevention of crime. A system of justice based upon retribution avails us nothing.

Second, even if it were true that our concepts of morality and justice would fall by the wayside within the deterministic framework, that's not actually an argument against the truth of determinism. This is what it's known as an argument from final consequences, a fairly common logical fallacy.

In fact, many of the other arguments levelled against determinism come in the form of the argument from final consequences: "If determinism is true, then I'm just a robot!" Yup. I guess so. "If people think that their actions are determined, they're more likely to cheat and steal!" Probably true, actually, based upon some recent psychological studies. But again, that's not really an argument.

"But what about the soul?"

I'm more or less assuming monism for the purposes of the talk. I think that the principle of parsimony and fairly solid neurological evidence suggests monism over dualism. Dualism really falls apart when examined in light of modern psychology and neuroscience. It is a fact that core personality attributes can be altered by a physical change to the brain. The soul, if it exists, would seem to be completely redundant.

"Quantum indeterminacy. That is all."

It is true that quantum indeterminacy may pose a problem for a strict interpretation of determinism.³ The quantum uncertainty gambit is a red herring, however, in that it actually does nothing to rescue free will.

Modern physics tells us that there are genuinely indeterminate events that occur on a quantum level, so there may be a sense in which (on a very small scale) events are not strictly deterministic. But there are two primary reasons to think that this has no bearing on the issue of free will. First of all, that quantum indeterminacy seems to cancel out at the macroscopic level. Neurons and synapses, while small, are not at all likely to be impacted by this uncertainty. Second, even if there is some way in which quantum indeterminacy may have some impact on the functioning of the brain, how would a random, indeterminate event open the door for free will? As Jeremy Beahan, Adjunct Instructor of Philosophy at Kendall College, put it:

An indeterminate event is even more frightening than a determinate event, because even in determinate events you can say, "Hey, look, my past experiences, the influence of my environment, everything like that goes into this choice." A genuinely indeterminate event, if that could affect consciousness, then that's something that just happened. And something that happens randomly is not the same thing as freedom.

"Determinism is unfalsifiable."

Of all of these criticisms, this is the one that I find most coherent. However, I still disagree. Lab studies can and do show predictable, and replicable causal influence on our decision making. Now, you may well object that influenced does not mean determined. I have two responses to that: First, I would contend that given the obvious difficulties in controlling for all variables when conducting these tests, we shouldn't expect to get a 100% determined outcome. The physics of the brain is immensely complex. Second, if our decisions can be even influenced by factors outside of our understanding or control, how can they be called in any meaningful sense "free"?

Saying that we may be influenced, but there's still perhaps a tiny place for a free agent to make free decisions really boils down to a free-will-of-the-gaps argument.

I have also encountered other objections, but time constraints do not allow me to discuss them at length.⁴

Compatibilism

There are some definitions of free will that are compatible with determinism.

Rather than asserting that a decision could have come out differently even had all of the contingencies been the same (the libertarian position), compatibilists may define "free will" simply as an agent's capacity to act in a manner that is not coerced or restrained.

Daniel Dennett articulates his two-stage model of decision making in his essay, "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want":

[W]hen we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent... Those considerations ... then figure in a reasoning process, and … ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision.

That's not only compatible with determinism, that is determinism!

Free Will: Do we have it?

Again, it depends what you mean.

We've looked at libertarian agency, we've looked at determinism, and we've looked at compatibilism, which attempts to marry the two.

Libertarianism? Certainly not.

Why I'm a Determinist

To wrap up, I'll briefly recap the three reason that I come down (provisionally) on the side of determinism.

First of all, given that our brains are made of "stuff", and our minds seem to be entirely the product of our brains, we're left without any known mechanism for free choice, from a contra-causal perspective.

Second, we have solid evidence from psychology and neurology that our decisions are not causally free, and can be strongly influenced by factors outside of our understanding or control.

And finally, we already acknowledge, both in our legal systems and in our quotidian lives, that there are reasons for our choices. Those reasons serve as explanations for our actions precisely because they have a causal influence on our decision-making.

Remember...

Either your actions are determined or they're not—but you are no more a robot if you believe in determinism than if you believe in free will.

"A theory about a thing does not change the thing the theory is about."
—B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity

Any questions?

References and Recommended Reading

Podcasts

Beahan, J., Fletcher, D., Galen, L. 2009. "Episode 29: Free Willy vs. Determinator". Reasonable Doubts. Podcast. Reality Radio WPRR. http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-29-free-willy-vs-determinator.html
Beahan, J., Fletcher, D., Galen, L. 2009. "Episode 30: FWvD2: Judgement Day with guest Tom Clark". Reasonable Doubts. Podcast. Reality Radio WPRR. http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/01/episode-30-fwvd2-judgement-day-with.html
Beahan, J., Fletcher, D., Galen, L. 2009. "Episode 34: Determinism… One Last Time". Reasonable Doubts. Podcast. Reality Radio WPRR. http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2009/02/episode-34-determinismone-last-time.html
Beahan, J., Fletcher, D. 2010. "RD Extra: Jeremy on the Don Johnson Radio Show". Reasonable Doubts. Podcast. Reality Radio WPRR. http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/06/rd-extra-jeremy-on-don-johnson-radio.html
Beahan, J., Fletcher, D., Galen, L. 2010. "Episode 69: Determinator 4: Rise of the Machines". Reasonable Doubts. Podcast. Reality Radio WPRR. http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/61/episode-69-determinator-4-rise-of.html

Books

Dennett, D. 1984. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. MIT Press.
Dennett, D. 2003. Freedom Evolves. Penguin Books.
Laplace, P.-S. 1829. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilitiesv. http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=1YQPAAAAQAAJ
Skinner, B.F. 1972. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Bantam Vintage.

News Articles

Smith, K. 2011. "Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will". Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html (accessed 11 September 2011)

Scientific Papers

Harlow, J.M. 1868. "Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head". Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2:339–342.
Libet, B., Gleason, C.A., Wright, E.W., Pearl, D.K. 1983. "Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act". Brain. 106 (3):623–642. PMID 6640273. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6640273
Soon, C.S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J. & Haynes, J.-D. 2008. "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain". Nature Neuroscience. 11, 543–545. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html

Philosophical Papers

Dennett, D. 1981. "On Giving Libertarians What They Say They Want". Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press.
Moreland, J.P. 1997. "Naturalism and Libertarian Agency". Philosophy & Theology. 10, 2. http://afterall.net/papers/490937
Schopenhauer, A. 1839. "Prize Essay on Freedom of the Will".

Notes

¹ A more accurate translation of Schopenhauer would be:

You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."
—Arthur Schopenhauer, "Prize Essay on the Freedom of the Will"

² I hesitate to mention Phineas Gage, as there exists so much exaggeration and distortion surrounding his case, with both the naturalists and the dualists of his time citing it in support of their claims. A careful review of the facts, however, supports the claim that specific damage to the brain results in specific damage to the mind and specific changes to personality.

To be clear, misinformation about the Gage case is not limited to proponents of dualism, with some (admittedly minor) misstatements of fact being presented even by the folks at Reasonable Doubts. That in mind, even a conservative reading of the known facts supports a naturalistic understanding of the mind. Although he misremembered the date of Gage's death (which I wouldn't count remarkable, save that it has been noted by several critics), Dr. John Harlow's account of the events seem balanced and fairly reliable, and supports (in my opinion) the central contention of this presentation.

Harlow writes:

The equilibrium or balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and animal propensities, seems to have been destroyed. He is fitful, irreverent, indulging at times in the grossest profanity (which was not previously his custom), manifesting but little deference for his fellows, impatient of restraint or advice when it conflicts with his desires, at times pertinaciously obstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plans of future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. A child in his intellectual capacity and manifestations, he has the animal passions of a strong man. Previous to his injury, although untrained in the schools, he possessed a well-balanced mind, and was looked upon by those who knew him as a shrewd, smart businessman, very energetic and persistent in executing all his plans of operation. In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage."

³ Proponents of some sort of quantum free will often point out that, since the advent of quantum physics, we can no longer be said to live in a clockwork universe. Perhaps it's trite of me to say so, but I think that certainly we can! When we look at clockwork, we see gears turning in a determined fashion, interlocking, all connected. We see inevitability. But, with our understanding of quantum physics in mind, we know that every clock ever commissioned was subject to the same quantum indeterminacy—and yet its gears continued to turn, day in, day out.

⁴ More objections.

"If determinism is true, then the future is fixed. We couldn't change anything!"

In a sense, that's true. But don't despair: the future will still be shaped by the present, just as the present is shaped by the past. Our actions may be causally determined, but those actions still impact the thoughts and deeds of others. It's important not to confuse determinism with predeterminism or fatalism. You're no one's marionette. I'm not suggesting that your path is laid out for you: just that you will forge your own path, and that there is a path that you will forge.

"But I feel like I have free will!"

Our senses are fallible! We may seem to have free will, but we also seem to have a complete visual field, when in fact we each have a fairly sizeable blind spot in each eye. Memory seems to accurately record events, but psychological studies continue to demonstrate that it is fickle and unreliable.

"What does it matter if we don't have free will? How could this possibly be relevant?"

First off, I think that understanding that nobody is "perfectly free" to make choices might allow us to move from a justice system that is less punitive and more focused on reformation of criminals and prevention of crime, which I think that any person in their more lucid moments would agree is a step in the right direction.

Second, exploring new areas of knowledge has proved beneficial in the past, even when no immediate application of this knowledge is readily apparent. There could be medical/neurological applications, perhaps. Determinism also makes the idea of general artificial intelligence plausible, which I find to be a hopeful prospect. I don't think that it's ever a mistake to nurture intellectual curiosity.

Third, it further hamstrings that (already quite stupid) theist response to the Problem of Evil: "Humans have free will, and thus they must have the choice to do evil. Evil is caused by free will." There are many other problems with that response, of course, but pointing out the false premise can't hurt.

Christianity: Why the Hell Not?

2011-09-09T09:17:00.000-05:00

I found this amusing.

Pain in the Neck

2011-09-06T10:27:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

As you may recall, Richelle and I were interviewed by Chris Hunter of the Uniter newspaper for a piece that he was working on about chiropractic. Well, the Uniter article on chiropractic is live, and it's not bad!

Richelle McCullough, a medical student at the University of Calgary, argues that physiotherapy is a preferred practice to chiropractic.

"If someone is dealing with lower back pain, physiotherapy is a good option," said McCullough via email. "They can do spinal manipulations, but more importantly (they) can help you strengthen the supporting muscles to prevent future re-injury."

Gem Newman of the Winnipeg Skeptics, a local group that has been critical of the chiropractic industry, also advises physiotherapy over chiropractic.

"When examined through the lens of science-based medicine, chiropractic offers little to distinguish itself from physiotherapy," he explained in an email.

McCullough also believes that chiropractors are unqualified for dealing with behavioural disorders, respiratory illness, rheumatological problems, cardiovascular disease and infections, which they often claim to be capable of treating.

According to Newman, chiropractic is based around a "vitalistic philosophy". This philosophy purports that the health of a person is related to the flow of innate intelligence, a sort of spiritual energy.

"While this energy has never been demonstrated to exist, the founder of chiropractic claimed that interruptions or disturbances in its flow (called 'vertebral subluxations') were the root of all disease," explained Newman.

Although many chiropractors have abandoned this old theory for a more scientific approach, many still claim the capability to treat several different diseases, including asthma, allergies and infections.

McCullough argues that most chiropractors belong to the latter category, and that those who use a more legitimate scientific approach are in the minority.

"This sort of thinking has led to all sorts of ridiculous claims, from the ability to cure asthma to a treatment for depression," she said. "If subluxations caused all these health problems, then why do people never suddenly develop allergies or psoriasis after a back injury?"

What did you think of the article? Feel free to post your comments or critiques below, or in the comments section at the Uniter.

Smug Derision

2011-09-01T11:49:00.001-05:00

The absurdity of the article is apparent upon reading no further than the headline: A Plea to Atheists: Pedophilia Is Next On the Slippery Slope; Let Us Turn Back Before It Is Too Late. Looking beyond the title, you'll find the author, Rabbi Moshe Averick, bewailing the moral collapse of society, while attributing it to... guess who?

In my own lifetime I have witnessed radical societal swings in moral behavior and attitudes regarding marriage and sexuality, homosexuality, the killing of unborn children, euthanasia, and the use of illicit drugs.

Rights for gay people, women, and the terminally ill? How horrible! Quick! Someone fetch my fainting couch!

And how are atheists responding to his hysterics? Here the good rabbi waxes poetic:

Religious believers expressing dismay and horror at the ominous moral storm clouds looming on the horizon are met with smug derision, hysterical counter-accusations, or utter indifference. There is nothing that atheistic societies are incapable of rationalizing and accepting – including the sexual molestation of children.

Shaking my head in rueful amazement, I banged out a quick comment and left it at that. "Well, Mr. Averick," I said, "I think that 'smug derision' adequately captures my response to your article."

I didn't expect the good rabbi to reply.

Gem,

It was not meant as a compliment. What I was trying to say is that instead of addressing the points and presenting coherent counter arguments, usually the response is ....like you said. I always welcome honest disagreement. Just present where you think my presentation was flawed.

Moshe

Read the article for yourself. It contains so many false premises, logical fallacies, quote mines, and simple misstatements of fact that the mind boggles. For a person so clearly uneducated in moral philosophy to expound at length about the amorality of atheists is simply absurd.

This strikes me as somewhat akin to having a conversation with a creationist, or a geocentrist. Eventually you come to the conclusion that this person is either being disingenuous, or is so woefully ignorant that you'd have to dedicate a significant portion of your time to giving this person a remedial education.

And I'm not willing to waste my time.

Believe it or not, Rabbi, your authoritarian ethical system is not the only game in town—nor is it the best, by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps you should have made an effort to educate yourself before you opened your mouth.

Luckily, most of the commenters get it right.

Addendum (12 September 2011): PZ Myers has weighed in with some worthwhile snark—and a little bit of substance, too.

The Token Skeptics Strike Again!

2011-08-24T20:00:00.011-05:00

This article is cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

The following email appeared in my inbox, yesterday.

Hi Gem,

University of Winnipeg's newspaper The Uniter is putting together a piece on the legitimacy of chiropractic. As critics of alternate medicine, we would love to speak to a member of the Winnipeg Skeptics on the topic.

The interview can be done over the phone or via email. Unfortunately, I will be leaving town Thursday morning so the interview would have to be done tomorrow evening at the very latest.

Please let me know if someone is available to talk.

Best
Chris Hunter, The Uniter

I've discussed chiropractic before; several times, in fact. This is also not the first time that the Winnipeg Skeptics have been invited to comment on a story by the Uniter: Ashlyn and I were interviewed last year for a piece about Winnipeg's Creation Museum. (I was initially displeased with that piece, but upon further reflection I understand the constraints under which the author was working.)

I put Chris in contact with Richelle McCullough, a medical student who has extensive biomedical research experience. Chris also asked us both to answer a few questions, and we obliged him.

Elementi di anatomia, by Francesco Bertinatti and Mecco Leone.
Public domain image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Do medical professionals (doctors) ever tell their patients to visit chiropractors?

Richelle: Referrals are up to the individual physician and I'm sure it happens. Certainly, most insurance companies require a physician's prescription in order to reimburse expenses, so I would guess that many referrals happen by patient request.

Gem: I'm sure that many do. When it comes to so-called "alternative" medicine, many physicians are what Dr. Steven Novella calls "shruggies": they are unaware of or disinterested in any alternative modality that does not directly affect their area of expertise. Many doctors also (erroneously) assume that while alternative medicine is mostly ineffective, it is also harmless.

From a medical standpoint, is there any reason to see a chiropractor?

Richelle: There are no good studies that definitively show any benefit to chiropractic above that which is already included in medical sciences, and it's usually worse.The only thing that chiropractic appears to help is lower back pain. A meta-analysis of all the high quality trials assessing chiropractic for lower back pain was published earlier this year in Spine, and it concluded that chiropractic seemed to be as good as physiotherapy for the treatment of lower back pain, but neither were particularly effective. The paper included studies published in the British Medical Journal and the New England Journal of Medicine – big journals with rigorous standards. Pain is subjective and particularly prone to things like regression to the mean and the placebo effect. Nobody really knows how to effectively treat back pain, and I suspect that even the benefits seen with physiotherapy and chiropractic would disappear given more rigorous controls for medical attention and patient belief that the treatment will help.

Of course, there are many sects of chiropractors, and those who base their treatments on scientific thinking are in the minority. Chiropractic work is founded on vitalistic concepts and the assumption that the alignment of the spine somehow alters the flow of unmeasurable "energy" from the brain to the periphery. This sort of thinking has lead to all sorts of ridiculous claims, from the ability to cure asthma to a treatment for depression. We now know what causes asthma, and it has nothing to do with your spinal alignment. If "subluxations" caused all these health problems, then why do people never suddenly develop allergies or psoriasis after a back injury? Chiropractic treatment for things that have nothing to do with your spine might have short term benefits due to the placebo effect, but ultimately do nothing to treat the underlying disease.

It is ironic that CAM practitioners so often accuse medicine of not treating the root of the problems, and yet advocate spinal manipulation for things like stomach ulcers, which have a demonstrable bacterial cause that can only be effectively treated by a regimen of antibiotics. It's also interesting to note that they claim to treat very subjective diseases with a natural history of an ebb and flow of symptoms. Some days, asthma may be worse than others, and a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month demonstrated that although any treatment which involved seeing a practitioner made the patients feel better, only drug administration actually improved their ability to breathe. Making the patient feel better is an important part of medicine, but needs to be combined with demonstrable, quantitative improvement of the underlying illness as well. Chiropractic might fulfill the first goal, but certainly not the second outside of the natural ebb and flow of the illness.

Gem: Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.

Chiropractic began as a vitalistic philosophy which posited that health is related to the flow of a spiritual energy called "innate intelligence". While this energy has never been demonstrated to exist, the founder of chiropractic claimed that interruptions or disturbances in its flow (called "vertebral subluxations") were the root of all disease. While some chiropractors (sometimes called "reforms") have moved beyond subluxation theory and take an evidence-based approach dealing primarily with back pain, many chiropractors still claim to treat a host of diseases for which there is no evidence that chiropractic is effective, and considerable evidence that it is not. (Examples include asthma, allergies, and even infections.)

It's safe to say that if your complaint is not musculoskeletal in nature, chiropractic is likely to be useless. Recent systematic reviews have shown that evidence for chiropractic efficacy for lower back pain is equivocal at best. Of course, all such conclusions are provisional and subject to revision should the state of the evidence change.

Are there serious risks associated with neck adjustments or other chiropractic treatments?

Richelle: There have been several high profile cases in which individuals have died or had strokes after neck manipulation, including a class action lawsuit out of Edmonton after a woman was paralyzed. The arteries which run along the vertebrae in the neck can be dramatically kinked, or even torn during something as simple as turning your head too rapidly, let alone during a sudden jerk from a chiropractor. Risks range from sudden death to stroke up to a few days later, when the clot becomes dislodged and travels to the brain. It's unlikely that this is a case of mere correlation, since a 2001 study by Rothwell and others found that people under 45 presenting to the hospital with stroke were five times more likely than controls to have seen a chiropractor within the week. It certainly seems to be a very real risk.

There's also the risk of misinformation. For example, many chiropractors actively promote anti-vaccine sentiments under the guise of informing their patients, instead encouraging them to use chiropractic to "boost their immune system." The lack of information being spread about vaccines in recent years has resulted in new outbreaks of measles, rubella, and other completely preventable diseases. There's currently a measles outbreak going on in Minnesota, and unvaccinated two toddlers are in critical condition. Side effects from vaccines are extraordinarily rare, and the consequences of an outbreak can be devastating, even lethal. There is no such thing as boosting the immune system - it's a completely meaningless phrase with no basis in physiology or biochemistry. Vaccines work by preparing the body to deal with a very specific kind of invader. No amount of non-specific "immune boosting" is going to protect you against any specific pathogen. Even if chiropractic work increased the general activity of the immune system, that is typically not a good thing, leading to things like allergies and auto-immune diseases, which can also apparently be treated with chiropractic work. So which is it – does chiropractic work increase or decrease the activity of the immune system?

Many chiropractors also take multiple x-rays of their patients over the course of treatment, sometimes several a year. Although physicians routinely use x-rays as well, they are used in a way which takes into account the diagnostic benefit with the risks of radiation. Some chiropractors take x-rays of all their patients on their first visit as a policy – whether such a thing is necessary or not! Subluxations cannot be reliably identified by x-ray between chiropractors, so it's an unreliable test and therefore exposes patients to unnecessary radiation. If you have ever been concerned about radiation doses from body scanners in airports, you should also be concerned about radiation from chiropractic x-rays.

Finally, there's the use of spinal manipulation on children. There's no excuse for doing this, as their bones are not fully formed, especially in infants, who are mostly flexible cartilage, which does not need manipulation. Since children do not have lower back pain, there is no demonstrable benefit for the use of spinal manipulation in children, which means any potential side effect pushes the risk-benefit scale well into "this is a really bad idea" territory.

Gem: Very serious complications have been associated with cervical spinal manipulation, but these are fairly rare.

Keep in mind, however, that it's not only the risk that we're concerned with: it's looking at the balance between risk and benefit. All medical interventions carry risks, and it's important to make an informed decision while understanding the probable outcome. I am not convinced that the benefits of chiropractic manipulation outweigh the risks.

Acupuncture, for example, has been demonstrated to be no more effective than poking the patient with toothpicks. However, this placebo is actually preferable to "real" acupuncture, because it does not carry the risk of infection.

Why are patients not made aware of risks associated with neck adjustments?

Richelle: One of my biggest issues with "alternative" medicine is the lack of informed consent provided to individuals. I believe strongly that people have the right to choose their treatment, but informed consent implies that you not only understand the benefits of your treatment course, but also the risks, how it works, and what other alternatives there are to consider. Do chiropractors ever explain that physiotherapy is equally effective in clinical trials as chiropractic for lower back pain, and holds fewer risks? Do they ever explain to their patients that they can only expect a mild decrease in the severity of their back pain, especially over the long term? Do they explain that there is not any agreement within chiropractic on what a spinal subluxation is, since there is no way to measure it? And do they ever tell them, when offering spinal manipulation for the treatment of non-muscle-skeletal issues, that it has never been demonstrated to be effective in a randomized, controlled clinical trial? The good ones, perhaps, but this is certainly not in the majority.

Chiropractors are there to sell their services. Your family doctor gets paid whether you go home with or without a prescription - if you leave a chiropractor's office without an adjustment, they've lost out on money for that visit, and all the potential subsequent visits. As the standards of chiropractors are self-determined, it says a lot that few chiropractors are willing to stand up for the rights of the patient.

Gem: That's a question that is probably best addressed to a chiropractor.

Are there alternative options to chiropractors? Other types of professionals that deal with the problems a chiropractor might deal with?

Richelle: If someone is dealing with lower back pain, physiotherapy is a good option. They can do spinal manipulation when medical necessary, but more importantly, can help you strengthen the supporting muscles to prevent future re-injury. There's not a lot of improvement that someone can expect with any treatment for lower back pain, but at least a physiotherapist can provide guidance to help it from getting worse.

As for the myriad of other problems that some chiropractics claim to be able to treat, people should talk to their family doctor. Chiropractors are not qualified to deal with behavioural disorders, respiratory illness, rheumatological problems, cardiovascular disease, infections, or other medical problems. People should be sure that they learn what their science-based treatment options are and fully understand them before they decide not to use them.

Gem: When examined through the lens of science-based medicine, chiropractic offers little to distinguish itself from physiotherapy. For short to medium term relief of muscular pain, therapeutic massage also has a good track record.

When dealing with a medical complaint, a visit to a real, honest to goodness medical doctor is always a good first step. He or she may then refer you to an appropriate specialist.

In general, what are some changes that need to take place within the chiropractic community for it to become a safer, better form of alternate medicine?

Richelle: Chiropractors need to become their own worst critics. It is only through the process of rigorous peer-review that chiropractors can purge the pseudo-science from their midst. This will require throwing out the vitalistic concepts of "innate intelligence" and subluxations, and examining the premises of chiropractic in the context of modern science. They need to be open to being wrong, and willing to follow where the research leads them. They need to strictly enforce the use of informed consent, and hand out punishment to those who take advantage of patients. If chiropractors used good science as the basis for their treatments, they would quickly find themselves not in the realm of "alternative medicine," but of simply, medicine. Sadly, that day has not yet come.

Gem: First of all, it's important to note that "alternative medicine" is not really a useful classification. It's a catch-all term for any medical modality that suffers from a dearth of evidence. As comedian/musician Tim Minchin said, "You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

Obviously, I'm no expert, but the first thing that I'd like to see from chiropractic is a standard of care. Chiropractic needs to embrace a science-based approach to treatment that takes into account both evidence and plausibility.

Most importantly of all, the reform needs to start from within. This can't be us versus them: chiropractors who embrace science-based medicine need to be vocal in their criticism of the pseudoscience practised by their peers.

Anything else you would like to add?

Richelle: There is nothing "alternative" about chiropractic, because that adjective implies that is equally valid as the science-based practices in medicine. When something has been definitively demonstrated to be effective as compared to an appropriate placebo and the current standard of care, it becomes part of medicine. There is no alternative medicine: just medicine that works, and medicine that does not or has not been proven yet. The parts of chiropractic that fall into the latter category are not being excluded from medicine because there is some overarching dogma. They're being excluded because they promote pre-scientific thinking, they encourage dangerous behaviours like refusal of vaccines, and they don't work better than a placebo for the majority of treatments.

Gem: When evaluating any claim, it's important to be aware of your own biases. Recognise that you are not an impartial observer, and that your personal experience does not constitute scientific evidence. We can all easily be fooled by confirmation bias, regression to the mean, and other effects that increase the chances we will perceive a benefit where none exists. Fortunately, science can equip us to better assess the state of the evidence as impartially as we can.

If you have some time, I also highly recommend reading Sam Homola's article The Image of Chiropractic: Consensus Based on Belief on Science-Based Medicine. Dr. Homola is a "retired chiropractor turned skeptic", and provided a good overview of the subject, along with recommendations on finding a good, science-based chiropractor.

Addendum (6 September 2011): The Uniter article has gone live: "The great chiropractic debate".

Stand back: I'm going to try Boolean logic!

2011-08-19T18:00:00.000-05:00

Fair warning: unless you're really into hardcore computer geekery, you're probably going to want to ignore this post. This has nothing much to do with skepticism, so feel free to skip it.

I do a lot of work in MATLAB, a programming language not without its quirks. One of its (many) missing features is the ternary operator, also known as the inline if statement. I'll give you a trivial example.

In many languages, you can do something like this:

fprintf( file, 'The statement is %s!\n', statement ? 'true' : 'false' );

In MATLAB, however, you have to do this:

if statement
fprintf( file, 'The statement is true!\n' );
else
fprintf( file, 'The statement is false!\n' );
end

Even if you don't understand the statements above, you probably get the idea. The first one is a lot more succinct than the second. There are cases in which you would need to completely restructure your function in order to remove a ternary operator. Although the uses of this operator are fairly esoteric, suffice it to say that this is a useful feature to have.

I came across a problem which really needed to be solved with an inline if. I was fooling around with function handles, and eventually came up with the following (warning: MATLAB code ahead):

iif = @( condition, ifTrue, ifFalse )( feval( @( result, trueOrFalse )( result{ trueOrFalse + 1 } ), { ifFalse ifTrue }, condition ) );

Yes, that is a function handle declaration with a nested anonymous function. If you're not accustomed to dealing with function handles, I wouldn't be offended if you bowed out now.

In any event, this code allows me to replicate the inline if functionality that MATLAB is missing! Observe:

~~fprintf( file, 'The statement is %s!\n', statement ? 'true' : 'false' );~~
fprintf( file, 'The statement is %s!\n', iif( statement, 'true', 'false' ) );

Not bad! Needless to say, I felt pretty good about myself.

Of course, my friend Curt had to come along and burst my bubble. He pointed out that I was so obsessed with writing things in one line that I'd overlooked the fact that I could have just as easily written iif as a standard function and still used it as an inline if:

function result = iif( condition, ifTrue, ifFalse )
    if condition
        result = ifTrue;
    else
        result = ifFalse;
    end
end

I can still execute the iif function in one line, as above, but this version is clearly easier to read. I benchmarked the two of them several times with 10,000 random comparisons that evaluated to true or false. The function version of iif completed the benchmark in under 0.1 seconds, while the evaluating the function handle took a dismal 2.2 seconds.

Blast.

Come at me, Boiron!

2011-08-18T18:00:00.027-05:00

Multinational homeopathic giant Boiron is threatening to sue an Italian blogger for publicly stating that their flagship "remedy", Oscillococcinum, contains no active ingredient.

In a recent statement entitled Boiron, Please Sue Us, the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) invite the company to pick on someone their own size.

Boiron, you are a bunch of intellectual cowards. As Professor Frank Frizelle quipped, "Let's hear your evidence not your legal muscle."

Boiron, your claims are mathematically and scientifically ludicrous, and completely without merit. Homeopathic remedies diluted past roughly 13C contain no active ingredient. Come at me, Bro.

Do psychics have real powers?

2011-08-17T23:41:00.000-05:00

Nope.

From Cryptomundo. Thumbnail qualifies as fair use.

James Randi and Banachek were just on ABC Nightline. You can read an excellent account of the show here.

TL;DR: It was generally very good, but they wrapped things up horribly at the end.

The Nonbelievers' Beliefs

2011-08-15T12:00:00.039-05:00

Have you ever had a religious person tell you that there is no good without God? Most atheists I know have heard that sort of nonsense time and again, even from family and friends. That sentiment was the impetus behind The Nonbelievers' Beliefs, a short film that I produced with Scott Carnegie.

The Nonbelievers' Beliefs premiered at the second annual MASH Film Festival at the Park Theatre in Winnipeg. The film is available for free on YouTube in high definition, and is also embedded below.

We cut about five hours of footage down to just under twelve minutes. Scott did an amazing job with the editing, and although I'm sorry that we had to make so many cuts I'm very pleased with the result.

With one exception, all of the interviews were filmed in Winnipeg. PZ Myers, our surprise special guest, was the only exception: Scott and I (and Ashlyn, our production assistant) hopped in Scott's car and drove eight hours down to Morris to interview him, and after our half-hour chat we got back in the car and drove the eight hours back. PZ was very generous with his time, and we really appreciate his help with this project. He was even kind enough to sign my Bible! Thanks, PZ!

And thank you to everyone else who participated in this project. Your reward is that you now have a PZ Number of 1.

Addendum: It's worth noting that the film didn't explore as much of the philosophical underpinnings of ethics as I would have liked it to. Several of our interviewees discussed nontheistic ethical philosophies (such as Act Utilitarianism) and others discussed how we arrive at our values. We had to keep things short, however, so Scott settled on the "empathy and compassion" theme that you see above. I think that it works wonderfully.

On a completely unrelated note, I should mention that I spent much of my time on the drive down to Morris worrying about whether I should call Professor Myers "PeeZee" (the standard American pronunciation) or "PeeZed" (the standard Commonwealth pronunciation). On the one hand, it's two letters, and I pronounce the letter Z "zed"; on the other, it's PZ's name. The practical upshot of all of this was that I don't think I actually referred to him by name even once while we were there, which is a shame.

Die Atheists, Die!

2011-08-12T10:00:00.004-05:00

So apparently Markuze isn't the only insane, intolerant, atheist-hating scumbag on the Internet. Who knew?

I don't think that's German.

The Communications Director for American Atheists recently appeared on Fox News to discuss their most recent unpopular (and understandably so) lawsuit. Fox News' Facebook page exploded. Here's a small sampling of the comments, taken from One Man's Blog:

Not pictured: Christ's love.

Fun stuff. And yes, Mr. Dunn, we do understand what the cross sybolizes: it's a torture device, designed to elicit unspeakable pain followed by a slow death. Its your obsession with it that torture device that puzzles me.

Hat tip to Jen at Blag Hag.

Montréal Police Investigate DM

2011-08-11T18:00:00.004-05:00

I started blogging about skepticism and atheism about two years ago, but I knew that I'd finally made it as a blogger when Dennis Markuze/David Mabus vomited his first bizarre stream-of-consciousness rant in the comments section.

Dennis Markuze (a.k.a. David Mabus, DM)

Over the last year or so, I've received (and promptly deleted) several comments from Markuze, some making direct threats and all of them bizarre. It's worth noting that DM is single-handedly responsible for Startled Disbelief's Comment Policy.

Well, it appears that the Montréal Police Service is finally taking Markuze seriously. This is good news. CTV and the Toronto Sun (among others) are covering the story. If you want to learn more about DM, BreakingSpells.net has a fairly good rundown.

Update (17 August 2011): According to a tweet from the Montréal Police Service, "a suspect was arrested" in the case.

Jen at Blag Hag has more:

I'm going to assume it's Mabus, since he's been particularly quiet lately. Unless there's a surprise twist, and Mabus's mom was the one sending all of the threats. Or if the internet was directed by M. Night Shyamalan, Mabus is PZ Myers.

Cosmos II: Electric Boogaloo!

2011-08-05T10:49:00.000-05:00

Good news, everyone!

Fox has just greenlit a 13-part sequel to Carl Sagan's phenomenal Cosmos: A Personal Journey, called Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey.

Sagan's original collaborators, Ann Druyan and Steven Soter, are involved in the production, and the series will be hosted by the only person who could possibly hope to fill Sagan's shoes: renowned astrophysicist and all around dream-boat Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Here's the weird bit, though: it will be produced by Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane.

At least, I thought it was weird until I read this:

"Never more than at this moment in the modern era have we needed a profound reminder of the colossally important and exciting role that science, space exploration and the human quest for knowledge must continue to play in our development as a species," MacFarlane said. "We should be vigorously exploring the solar system by now, and who better to inspire us to get there than Ann Druyan, Steven Soter, Neil deGrasse Tyson and, of course, Carl Sagan."

This is excellent, excellent news!

Oh, Elizabeth May...

2011-07-29T11:12:00.001-05:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Now, I've criticised the Green Party before for basing their policies on ideology rather than on sound science. I've also criticised journalists who should know better for swallowing outlandish fear-mongering about EMF without a hint of skepticism.

Now all the threads are coming together.

Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada's Green Party and the first Green candidate to be elected to federal office, recently took to Twitter to criticise BC Hydro's Smart Meters, pausing only to take a swipe at WiFi in schools.

Honestly, I'm getting really tired of fighting this fight, and I'm starting to understand what Randi means when he talks about "unsinkable rubber ducks". Science writer Brian Dunning (of the award-winning Skeptoid podcast) addresses some of May's claims directly in today's Ottawa Citizen:

For a politician to be frightened of a tiny, low-voltage device that generates a shadow of nature's everyday state, at a natural frequency, betrays an unacceptable level of disdain for basic science and knowledge of nature. There are reasons that we chose radio as a means for delivering information. It's natural, it's easy, and it's the way our environment works. One can try to argue that radio is used because it's cheap and profits can be easily made, with a reckless disregard for health, but claims of health effects rapidly disintegrate under even the simplest of scientific scrutiny.

Dr. Steven Novella has also addressed the issue of health concerns over EMF several times in the past. From one of his recent posts on the subject:

To give a quick summary, there is no convincing data to link cell phone use and brain cancer. Epidemiological studies have not found an increase in the incidence of brain cancer following the widespread adoption of cell phones in the mid 1990s – as one would expect if there were a causal relationship. Further, large scale studies have not found any consistent correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer.

And finally, one last LOL-worthy tidbid via reddit:

Tips o' the hat to Eric Davies and Tim Herd.

Proof!

2011-07-28T14:21:00.000-05:00

Finally! The brand new Atheist Legitimacy blog provides proof of God's existence!

We are battling "atheists" in the wrong arena. It has been the arena of their choosing: the arena of deception. And as we do battle there, they are systematically trying to take God out of America, and they are walking right into our schools and destroying our children. Enough is enough. Let's do battle in the arena of our choosing: the arena of Truth.

...

PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

(Have you been in those mind twisting, frustrating debates and arguments with professed "atheists" trying to prove to them that God exists? God set me free from that. It's not your responsibility to prove the existence of God. It's God's responsibility. And He's already done it. He has proven His existence through Creation, Conscience, and Christ, the Word of God.

You no longer have to try to prove the existence of God, but only to inform professed "atheists" that they already know God is there, God knows that they know, and He’s holding them accountable.)

Good news, everyone! There's no need to do battle with atheists, because atheists don't exist!

That may well be the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

As my friend Eric said, "That is my favourite circular argument ever."

Fake Gem Newman

2011-07-20T13:09:00.002-05:00

The real Gem Newman wouldn't use two exclamation marks.

Someone* has set up a novelty twitter account for Fake Gem Newman. His tweets are much more insightful and amusing than mine, so I recommend following him rather than me.

* No, it's not me. I do know who it is, however.

Placebo Medicine

2011-07-19T10:48:00.002-05:00

Dr. Novella has an excellent post up at Neurologica about the placebo effect and its use in medicine. I recommend it highly.

An Introduction to the Amaz!ng Meeting

2011-07-15T08:00:00.002-05:00

Cross-posted from SkepticsOnThe.Net.

The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM for short) is an annual conference celebrating science and skepticism sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation, and is considered by many to be the premier skeptical event of the year. The conference boasts a dazzling array of speakers, side-events, and entertainment. Frequent guests include Adam Savage of MythBusters, Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy, magicians Penn & Teller, Richard Dawkins, the cast of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, and—of course—James "The Amazing" Randi.

The JREF was founded in 1996 by conjurer and skeptic James Randi, who is most famous for his numerous appearances on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show and for his Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge. The organisation's primary goal is to educate the public and the media with regard to the dangers of accepting unproven claims. The JREF also supports research into paranormal claims under controlled scientific experimental conditions.

The Amaz!ng Meeting began as a modest conference attended by 150 people in Fort Luderdale, Florida, where the JREF is based. Since the first TAM in 2003 interest in the conference has swelled; it moved to Las Vegas the next year, and by TAM 8 in 2010 the conference had more than 1300 attendees. The JREF also sponsors international TAM satellite conferences, with the first TAM London taking place in 2009 and the inaugural TAM Australia in 2010.

If you attend a TAM conference, you can expect amazing speakers and panel discussions on a wide range of topics, from creationism to climate change, from feminism to grass-roots skeptical activism, from genetic engineering to the latest in quirky psychological research. Without exception the speakers are incredibly friendly and welcoming people and the atmosphere is inviting and grand. The conference boasts many side-events, featuring workshops, additional panel discussions, and even musical performances by the likes of Roy Zimmerman and George Hrab.

It's common to start off your day at The Amaz!ng Meeting with coffee and pastries while attending a live taping of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and end the day at the SGU Dinner or with one of Rebecca Watson's infamous parties. You'll get to hobnob with your skeptical heroes and witness events that will be talked about in skeptical circles for years to come (I'm looking at you, "Don't Be a Dick"!).

But if you can't attend, don't despair! Some of the talks from past years are available for free on Vimeo, and from time to time the JREF will produce DVDs of the entire conference.

And hey, there's always next year!

Links:
The Amaz!ng Meeting
The James Randi Educational Foundation
Videos from the Amaz!ng Meeting

If you want to hear more about The Amaz!ng Meeting 8, which I attended, here are some highlights in which I give an overview of TAM, discuss the opening remarks, recap Adam Savage's presentation, and give my perspective on Phil Plait's speech. And if you're not familiar with TAM 8's "Don't Be a Dick" controversy, I'm sure that Phil Plait would be willing to fill you in: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Evidence for Creationism? Nope!

2011-07-12T10:59:00.000-05:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

Here we go again.

So creationist David Buckna has been hanging out in the comments section of the Winnipeg Skeptics blog for the last few days. Rather than have my replies buried deep in the comments section, I like to use them as the opportunity for blog-fodder, especially when they begin to exceed the character limits imposed on comments by the various blogging platforms that we use.

Here is Buckna's most recent comment:

Gem wrote: “If your only means of supporting your position is to attempt to poke holes in the position of your opponents, you demonstrate that your own position is untenable. Please present evidence for your position.”

You are not obliged in science to come up with an alternative theory for a theory you are criticizing. There is no rule like that in science.

That said, there is ample evidence and related inferences for creation/intelligent design, but evolutionists choose to ignore them because evolutionists interpret evidence and data through the lense of philosophical naturalism. Why _is_ evolution the one subject skeptics aren’t skeptical about?

Evidence for creation/intelligent design include: the universe is a Tri-Universe,

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2590/215/

earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale, the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), man and apes have a separate ancestry, natural selection (a creationist’s idea), the design inference,
rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from radioactive crystals
http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/
irreducible complexity, the complexity of living cells, etc.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/pdf/464664a.pdf

Maybe it’s time for the evolutionists to read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

Are we on the verge of another great paradigm shift?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

“In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative. There are many examples in the history of science in which confidence in the established frame of thought was eventually vindicated. Whether the anomalies of a candidate for a new paradigm will be resolvable is almost impossible to predict. Those scientists who possess an exceptional ability to recognize a theory’s potential will be the first whose preference is likely to shift in favour of the challenging paradigm. There typically follows a period in which there are adherents of both paradigms. In time, if the challenging paradigm is solidified and unified, it will replace the old paradigm, and a paradigm shift will have occurred.”

Is it any wonder that I keep having to dig these out of the spam filter?

In any event, I'll try to address each claim one by one.

You are not obliged in science to come up with an alternative theory for a theory you are criticizing. There is no rule like that in science.

I agree with you, and I made no such claim. I'll repeat what I said, as it seems like you weren't listening: "Critiquing evolution does provide evidence for the creationist position."

So sure, feel free to critique evolution. That's fine. But you should understand that if you are advocating an alternative hypothesis (as creationists are), you are obliged to provide evidence for it.

Obviously.

Evidence for creation/intelligent design include: the universe is a Tri-Universe,

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/2590/215/

This is evidence? That article is hilarious! It contains nothing but wild assertions and Biblical quotations. The author seems to think that because the universe is composed "of Space, Matter, and Time, each permeating and representing the whole", this somehow provides evidence that it was created by a triune God.

In support of his thesis, Morris states that "in fact, many scientists speak of it as a Space-Matter-Time continuum." Actually, they don't. From what little I understand of the topic, space and time speak to the dimensionality of our universe. Our universe is composed of matter and energy (which are interchangeable). Why not then speak of a "space-matter-time-energy continuum", you might ask? Because that wouldn't fit the pattern of the trinity, of course!

And scientists speak of it as a "space-time continuum"; it seems to be mostly creationists who speak of it as a "space-matter-time continuum" (here, let me Google that for you).

earth’s geologic features appear to have been fashioned by rapid, catastrophic processes on a global and regional scale, the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion), man and apes have a separate ancestry, natural selection (a creationist’s idea), the design inference,

So you look at the "geological features" of the planet and infer catastrophism "on a global and regional scale"? You were not specific, probably because you'd like to maintain a position of unfalsifiability. Perhaps you're referring to the Grand Canyon? It's features are not consistent with a global flood. The geologic column? Ditto. Fossil sorting? Nope.

And "the fossil record (eg. the Cambrian explosion)"? What's that supposed to mean? Presumably that complex life forms appeared suddenly, with no ancestral fossils? That is false. The Cambrian "explosion" was "sudden" on a geological timescale, but actually took place over an estimated 70–80 million years, and is in no way inconsistent with an evolutionary understanding of speciation. The Wikipedia article provides a useful summary of the Cambrian explosion for anyone interested.

As for "man and apes have a separate ancestry", you'd be wrong. Humans are apes. If you want to present evidence to the contrary, be my guest. Until then, citation needed.

You say that natural selection is "a creationist’s idea". Perhaps you're referring to Gregor Mendel's theories of inheritence? The term "natural selection" was first coined by Darwin in Origin, but even if it had originated with a creationist, that's a nonsequitur. If you would kindly limit yourself to arguments that make sense, I'm sure that we'd all appreciate it.

I won't waste anyone's time discussing the "design inference", as it has been more than adequately addressed elswhere, most notably at Iron Chariots and at Talk Origins' Index to Creationist Claims. If you're interested, you know where to look.

Maybe it’s time for the evolutionists to read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962)

Are we on the verge of another great paradigm shift?

I'm familiar with Kuhn. But paradigm shifts are rare, and I'm not convinced that we're on the verge of one. There are also many insightful criticisms of Kuhn's work, some of which are summarised here. But I think that PZ Myers addresses this claim quite adequately here.

[M]ainstream journalists play this game with scientists, and some scientists play it up as well; but the real masters are the creationists. It's all they've got: rhetoric that tries to put them in the role of the brave, noble, clever underdog trying to overcome the stifling influence of a stagnant scientific orthodoxy. It's even more false, but it does appeal to the media.

Can we just get something straight? Science builds on past discoveries. You don't get to cherry pick what bits you want to include in your theory — successful new theories don't throw away old evidence, they extend and strengthen and reinforce, and offer new insights. There may be new theories that follow the theory of evolution … but they will all incorporate the basic facts of earth's history — its age, common descent, the relationships between species, etc. — and will not be any more appealing to creationists than what we've got now.

So you've thrown a veritable Gish Gallop of nonsense at the wall, hoping that some of it will stick. What a waste of time.

Look, Buckna: I have neither the time no the inclination to deal with any more of your foolishness. I have two jobs, a family, and a community of friends with whom I'd like to spend more time. I do this in my free time, which is scarce enough, and I have other projects on which I'd like to work. So unless you can come up with something interesting, instead of just throwing out wild assertions and long-debunked creationist canards, I'm not going to waste any more time on you.

I Get Mail: Creationism Edition!

2011-07-08T12:29:00.002-05:00

Wow, that was quick.

I just received the following email from David Buckna, who I think is probably also the anonymous commenter from my previous post about creationism. [Edit: Nope, apparently it wasn't him.]

Subject: Evolution: The Creation Myth of Our Culture

Gem:

Programmers utilized complex codes to create software. The genetic code, which is more sophisticated, controls the physical processes of life and is accompanied by elaborate transmission and duplication systems.

How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?

My first question is this: In what way is the genetic code "more sophisticated" than, say, C++ or SmallTalk or Python or MATLAB? (Okay, I'll grant you MATLAB.)

The theory of evolution proposes that mutations (insertions, deletions, changes) to the genetic "code" are acted upon by natural selection. Those that are advantageous are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

It's important to keep in mind that this code is does not constitute information in any abstract or absolute sense; it only constitutes a "code" in the context of the biological processes involved in reading and replicating it.

Similarly, the code "buffer = ( char* ) malloc ( i + 1 );" is meaningful in the context of C but meaningless in the context of Java. If C had never been invented, that code segment would be gibberish. And here's the important bit: genetic "code" (e.g., "ATA CTG") outside of the context of DNA is also meaningless gibberish.

I recognise that Buckna's question was probably disingenuous: he's not looking for an answer; he's looking to play "stump the evolutionist". But it's possible that others may learn when proponents of science respond to his ramblings.

It's interesting to note that this is probably also the same creationist who attempted to insert his propaganda into Jeff Proling's Dinosauria On-Line. The story is enlightening. He's also been trolling PZ Myers and the folks at Radio Freethinker, so I'm in good company.

Addendum (11 July 2011): After the 40+ comments that this response has garnered so far, it occurs to me that I should make a few things clear.

The original question that was posed to me ("How does evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence?") should be better addressed to an evolutionary biologist. I briefly addressed some of the premises of Buckna's argument from the perspective of a software developer, but I'm no expert in evolution, nor have I ever claimed to be. It seems to me that the combination of random variation and selection adequately explains increasing information content over time (as can be trivially demonstrated via computer simulation).

But let's suppose for a moment that the answer was, "I don't know. I don't know how evolution accounts for that." So what? The argument "Since evolution can't explain X, creationism is true!" is fallacious. I'm told that there was a time before we understood how electrostatic discharges worked (although I wasn't there). However, to assert that since science couldn't explain lightning it therefore must have been a manifestation of Zeus' divine will would be to appeal to a god of the gaps.

The evidence for special creation is non-existent, while the evidence for evolution is legion. (Look here if you'd like some examples.) That said, even if there were no convincing evidence for evolution, or if all evidence for evolution were convincingly falsified, that would not somehow make special creation a plausible alternative hypothesis—to promote this idea is to commit the fallacy of the false dilemma. Critiquing evolution does provide evidence for the creationist position.

If your only means of supporting your position is to attempt to poke holes in the position of your opponents, you demonstrate that your own position is untenable. Please present evidence for your position.

An Introduction to Creationism

2011-07-08T08:00:00.001-05:00

Cross-posted from SkepticsOnThe.Net.

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and everything within it is the result of special creation by a supernatural entity. Creationists hold that the diversity of life did not result from natural processes such as evolution, but that human beings and other animals were explicitly created by one or more deities.

Proponents of creationism commonly propose that educators should "teach the controversy" between evolution and creationism, or that students should learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories—but evolution is scientifically uncontroversial. According to a 2009 Pew Research poll, "nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public." Scientific acceptance of evolution is even higher among biologists and others trained in the life sciences.

Creationists typically belong to one of two groups:

Young Earth Creationists hold that the planet and all living things were created within the last 6,000–10,000 years, usually in accordance with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.
Old Earth Creationists generally accept the scientific consensus with regard to the age of the Earth, but maintain that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain the diversity of life.

Until the middle of the twentieth century, teaching the theory of evolution was forbidden by law in many states. When challenged on First Amendment grounds, these laws were found to be in violation of the establishment clause and were rescinded. After a series of unsuccessful attempts to reinstate the teaching of creationism in American public schools, many Old Earth Creationists re-branded themselves proponents of "Intelligent Design", intending to mask their religious agenda.

Kitzmiller v. Dover was the first court case to test the teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that "Intelligent Design is not science, and ... cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents." This ruling was based on testimony from leading scientists in the field and in part on the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document", whose stated goal was "to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

More recent creationist tactics have focused on "academic freedom", proposing that creationists are oppressed by mainstream science. This was the theme of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which also attempted to link the theory of evolution to fascism and genocide. The National Center for Science Education put together the excellent Expelled Exposed website which addressed the film's many gross misstatements of fact.

Support and Opposition

The leading modern proponents of Young Earth Creationism include Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis, who runs Kentucky's Creation Museum, Kent Hovind of Creation Science Evangelism, who ran the now-defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land, Ray Comfort of The Way of the Master, and the Institute for Creation Research. Intelligent Design Creationism is promoted primarily by the Washington-based Discovery Institute.

The leading modern opponents of creationism include Dr. Eugenie Scott and The National Center for Science Education, popular blogger and evolutionary biologist Professor PZ Myers, Yale neurologist Dr. Steven Novella, and scientists and skeptics around the world.

Creationist Claims Refuted

As no persuasive scientific evidence exists that supports creationism, creationists commonly attempt to advance their cause by proposing problems with evolution—this attempts to leverage a false dichotomy between creationism and evolution: any problems that exist with the current formulation of the theory of evolution do not provide evidence for creationism.

The Index to Creationist Claims is an indispensable reference site that provides refutations of many of the most common creationist attacks on evolution. Here is a small sample:

Creation Museums

Private museums that promote a literal biblical view of history can be found in several cities across North America. PZ Myers and the Secular Student Alliance toured Kentucky's Creation Museum run by Answers in Genesis in 2009. (You can find an account of the trip written by Jen McCreight here.) In 2010 the Winnipeg Skeptics visited Manitoba's much smaller Dinosaur Discovery Zone Kids Club & Creation Museum run by CARE Ministries. (You can find an account of the trip here.)

References and Suggested Reading:

Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture. "The Wedge". Discovery Institute. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Theobald, Douglas. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Version 2.87. Updated 19 June 2007, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Isaak, Mark (editor). An Index to Creationist Claims. Updated 5 November 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

The National Center for Science Eductation. Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks. Accessed 3 July 2011. http://www.expelledexposed.com/

The National Center for Science Eductation. "Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial". 17 October 2008, accessed 3 July 2011. http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

The National Center for Science Eductation. Reports of the National Center for Science Education. Volume 26, Issues 1–2. January–April 2006, accessed 3 July 2011. (Some articles not available online.) http://ncse.com/rncse/26/1-2

Pew Research Center. "Section 5: Evolution, Climate Change and Other Issues". Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media: Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. 9 July 2009, accessed 3 July 2011. http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

Symphony of Science: Children of Africa

2011-07-07T07:44:00.000-05:00

The tenth Symphony of Science music video, "Children of Africa: The Story of Us", is now available! If you haven't checked out Symphony of Science (and you don't mind a little autotuning), then what are you waiting for?

Thanks, John!

SkepticsOnThe.Net

2011-07-03T22:45:00.000-05:00

I've joined the SkepticsOnThe.Net team!

What is SkepticsOnThe.Net? From the About Us page:

Skeptics On The .Net aims to be the premier directory for the many skeptical blogs and podcasts and on the Internet. Our goal is to help those just starting to learn about Skepticism and to expand the knowledge of those who already consider themselves Skeptics.

So basically, it's my Resources page, except several orders of magnitude better.

There's also a blog that introduces a new skeptical topic each week, providing a brief overview of the subject and links to further reading. You may even see contributions from yours truly sometime in the future.

Escape to Reality!

2011-06-28T20:00:00.004-05:00

Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.

The Humanist Association of Manitoba and the Winnipeg Skeptics were joint sponsors of an informational booth at the Red River Exhibition that ran 17–26 June 2011. Surrounded as we were by booths from the Gideons, the Winnipeg League for Life, the Church of Scientology, and folks hawking knock-off Power Balance wristbands, we called the booth "Escape to Reality".

I spent a fair portion of my free time over the last week staffing the booth (along with the indefatigable and demonstrably more dedicated Donna Harris and others), and generally had a lot of fun. We even got a shout-out from PZ, which is always appreciated. We had many enjoyable conversations with believers and skeptics of all stripes.

Donna, Laura, and I chatted at length with a few creationists, who were apparently offended that one of our signs put "Young Earth Creationism" in the same evidential category as "The Easter Bunny". When pressed, they could provide no positive evidence for their position, and seemed to forget several of their own talking points. Apparently there are no beneficial mutations, evolution cannot add information to the genome, and Darwinism predicts that species will just get stronger, smarter, and better over time, while we're clearly just getting sicker and sicker.

When I tried to explain that evolution only predicts increasing adaptation to the species' environment, I was smugly informed that I did not understand evolution. When I tried to explain precisely how mutations can add "information" in a genetic sequence, bringing up insertions, deletions, transpositions, and point mutations, I was met with blank stares. I pulled out a sheet of paper and wrote out some codons (ATG CTG TAG...), changing or crossing out letters to illustrate the replication or replacement of one or more nucleotides.

"I'm going to stop you there," one of the creationists said. "What are all those letters supposed to mean?"

Sorry, I thought, my mistake. I assumed that because you so arrogantly asserted that mutations were incapable of adding new information to a genome, you were at least passingly familiar with what "information" means in the context of genetics. I decided to cut my losses and move on.

There were times that they stumbled over their own talking points, which I found amusing. For example, they brought up Mount St. Helens several times, but couldn't seem to remember why it was so important for their case. I reminded them that Steven Austin had rock from a new lava flow at Mount St. Helens dated, and the potassium-argon dating showed the rock to be hundreds of thousands of years old—unfortunately, it is well established that Austin (either knowingly or in ignorance) used the incorrect radiometric dating methods. The various types of radiometric dating are accurate for varying (and overlapping) ranges of time. They are validated not only against each other, but also by other dating methods, such as dendrochronology, which uses tree rings.

Wait a second, it says here that God created humanity, not Darwin...

Of course, the creationists weren't the only people we met whose beliefs took a sharp right turn when confronted with reality. A young woman who seemed very interested in our booth asked me, "Do you guys believe in energy?" "Sure!" I said. "Energy is the capacity of a system to perform work." She seemed a little nonplussed by this. "No," she said. "How we're all connected by energy. It's all about science. There's this movie you should see..." "Ah!" I said. "You're talking about What the Bleep Do We Know?." And then I told her, as gently as I could, precisely what I thought of that particular quantum fantasy film.

We spent much of our time at the Ex promoting SkeptiCamp Winnipeg, which is coming up on September 17^th at Aqua Books, and the MASH Film Festival, on August 14^th at the Park Theatre. Both events garnered a lot of interest.

We also did a few demonstrations. I'm told that the fellow hawking "Energy Balance" bracelets ($30 rubber bands—with "ions"!) threatened to call security on Ashlyn as she calmly explained to his marks how all of his tricks could easily be faked. Hypothetically, of course. She wasn't calling him a fraud. It's all about the consumer protection, folks! (Richard Saunders explains the tricks here.)

On Thursday night, Scott and I went to get "stress tests" at the Dianetics booth run by the Church of Scientology. There, we were asked personal questions while we held tin cans connected to a volt meter. I found that if you squeezed the cans, the needle would jump, which led to some amusing shenanigans.

Pictured: Science.

There, we learned that L. Ron Hubbard had apparently been both a renowned physicist and a research psychologist. "Through his research," I was told, "he discovered that humans are spiritual beings." Fascinating! We were told that Scientologists were first responders in Haiti and Japan. "Oh," I said, "that's great! How did they help?" I was informed that these "first responders" were trained in Touch Assist, a form of energy healing.

The recruiters told Scott and I that one of the greatest boons that Dianetics has to offer is increased mental discipline and help to those who suffer from mental illness. "You know how Einstein said that you only use this much of your brain?" my recruiter said, holding her hands about an inch apart. "Well, with Dianetics..." She spread her arms wide, presumably indicating that Dianetics would allow me to meet my intellectual potential.

"So Dianetics is about mental health," I said slowly. "That's exactly right," she told me.

"Oh," I said. "Like psychiatry."

She stared at me as though I'd slapped her. Recovering quickly, she launched into a conspiracy-mongering diatribe about drug dependency and the Big Psychiatry smear campaign against the Church of Scientology. Scientologist successfully trolled. I'm such a bastard.

My favourite quotation of the night: "Dianetics is a science. It's like gravity. You can't disprove it." Fact.

A big thank-you to everyone who helped out with planning and staffing the booth, and to those who stopped by for a chat!

Forgive Us Our Trespasses: Prayer in Public Schools

2011-06-26T13:27:00.001-05:00

The Winnipeg Free Press recently ran a really good article about ongoing prayer in Manitoba's public school systems. While Canada does not have a constitutional separation of church and state, this prayer does violate provincial regulations.

Betende Hände, by Albrecht Dürer.

In supposedly secular schools across the province, teachers and principles read the Lord's Prayer to students, while irreligious pupils "are expected to stand quietly in their classrooms while their classmates recite the Lord's Prayer all around them". If parents don't want their children involved in sectarian religious exercises, they must sign forms to opt out.

Every one of these actions violates Manitoba's guidelines on religious exercises in secular public schools, says Dauphin lawyer and atheist Chris Tait.

But the province says its only recourse is to remind school divisions about guidelines -- after that, it's up to individuals to take their complaints to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission or the courts.

It was back in 1986 that Tait was suspended several times for refusing to stand during the reciting of the Lord's Prayer in his MacGregor Collegiate classroom. That led to a historic 1992 court case in which the Court of Queen's Bench struck down mandatory school prayer in Manitoba.

More than 20 Manitoba school divisions are violating the province's guidelines on religious exercises, said Tait. He filed Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act applications to school divisions and provided the results to the Free Press.

While the article itself is generally excellent, the comments section serves to deliver our daily helping of stupid, and Flora over at the Winnipeg Skeptics blog dives right in:

Kids today are worse than they used to be! This is because they took prayer out of schools! Umm, I'm pretty sure the point of this article is that prayer is still in schools even though it's not supposed to be. Most likely, you have a nostalgia bias, and remember things better than they were, and any real decline in good behaviour at school is due to other factors.

...

If you don't like it, you should go to a country that doesn't believe in God. Um no, first of all, a country cannot believe in God, only its people can. Furthermore, this particular country enforces the freedom of religious belief, INCLUDING atheism, agnosticism, and all other religions. There are very specific rules for how religion can enter public schools, and it is not allowed to be on school time. If you would prefer a country that does enforce such things, as pointed out by another commenter, I hear Iran is really nice for religious fundamentalism this type of year.

Imagine what it must feel like to be a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu or Jain or atheist child, forced to stand silently while the teacher and most of your classmates pray to a deity that in which you do not believe.

The removal of mandatory sectarian prayer is very important. Such forced religious worship is very divisive, and serves to further isolate students who belong to religious (or irreligious) minorities from their peers. Fallacious arguments from popularity or tradition aside, I see no justification for continuing the practice, and applaud Mr. Tait's efforts to see it abolished.

Religious freedom shouldn't be reserved for those in the majority.

My New Bible

2011-06-23T09:17:00.003-05:00

My new Bible arrived in the mail today!

Although I've read most or all of the book in bits and pieces throughout the years, I've never sat down and read it straight through, front to back—but that's something that I've always wanted to do.

I finally settled on the NET Bible. The full text is available online for free, but despite my technological predilections I thoroughly enjoy holding a tome in my hands as I read.

I knew that there would be copious translators' notes (the spine of the volume boasts 60,932 of them), but exactly what that meant for the text of the work was lost on me until I turned to Genesis 1.

Yes. Amid the footnotes, they managed to squeeze all of two verses onto the opening page.

This could take a while.

Also, they used the Papyrus font for all of the titles. I would have preferred Pergamena, of course. (Oooh, a parchment joke! That makes me clever!)

Update: Remember the Sin of Sodom? Although the NET Bible does translate Genesis 19:5 as "They shouted to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!'", in a footnote it makes reference to the alternate Sin of Inhospitality hypothesis advocated by W. Roth and Robert Price. I like that.

The U.N. Passes LGBT Rights Resolution

2011-06-21T07:26:00.000-05:00

Unexpected! But excellent.

Hat tip to Jeff Olsson.

Skeptical News Roundup!

2011-06-13T19:00:00.001-05:00

There are several newsitems (major and minor) that have cropped up over the last few months that I've been meaning to blog about, but have simply slipped through the cracks. As you may have heard, I'm helping my friend Scott produce a film about nonbelievers that is scheduled to debut at the Manitoba Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH) Film Festival on August 14^th, and that's currently taking up much of the time that I usually allocate to writing. So there you go.

Courtesy of DragonArt, CC BY-NC-SA 3.0.

It's okay to be Takei.

The Takeis have been in the news quite a bit, lately. Over at Blag Hag, Jen discusses Germany's Union of Catholic Physicians, which is endorsing homeopathy as a cure for the gay. Fitting: a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem—and (as Jen points out) probably less psychologically damaging than the A Clockwork Orange-style aversion therapy that's more commonly employed to "treat" gays. But if like cures like, you and I both know that there's only one cure for gay sex, and it's gay sex.

Also making the rounds is a blog post by Nathan Heflick at Psychology Today. He talks briefly about a 1996 study that found that while both homophobic and non-homophobic heterosexual men were equally aroused by heterosexual and lesbian pornography, only the homophobes were aroused by man-on-man action. Neither the abstract nor Heflick's discussion of the study raise any real red flags, but I'm not qualified to evaluate it. I am, however, qualified to snigger.

There's been much ado over the past few months about Ontario's public Catholic schools, what with their recent decisions to "ban" rainbows, appropriate donations to an LGBT-friendly help-line for a Catholic homeless shelter, suspend students for expressing pro-choice sentiment, and generally being bigoted and disgraceful institutions. BoingBoing reminds us that the United Nations has condemned Canada's public religious schools as a human rights violation. (Full disclosure: my eleven-year-old brother attends a Catholic school in Thunder Bay, and by all accounts receives an excellent education.)

Hat tips to Anlina Sheng, Blag Hag, and BoingBoing.

Why, WHO, why?

People have been concerned for some time about cellphones and cancer. I've discussed this briefly in the past, first in my response to an awful Free Press article about "dirty electricity", and then again in my last Skeptical News Roundup.

Despite the hysteria that has gripped news organisations and Facebook users alike over the WHO's recent classification of cellphone use as a type 2B potential carcinogen, there is still no good evidence that your mobile device is poisoning your brain.

Hat tips to Skeptic North and BoingBoing.

Scott Adams almost catches up to Vox Day in the douchebag department.

I enjoy Dilbert, but I have the good sense to be a little ashamed about that, because Scott Adams is such an appalling jackass. He has a history of saying laughably stupid things, and when people call him on it, he responds by ridiculing his critics for taking what he has to say seriously. (He sort of reminds me of Insane Clown Posse in that respect.)

Anyway, it's now been revealed that—surprise, surprise—he's been going around the Internet with a pseudonym, praising Scott Adams (himself) as a "certifiable genius", and going on to claim that those who disagree with him are "too dumb to understand what he's saying".

What a douchebag.

Hat tip to Pharyngula.

Dear Oprah...

As you might imagine, I don't much care for Oprah. I cheered when Brian Dunning named her #1 on his list of celebrities who promote harmful pseudoscience. BoingBoing contributor David Ng does an excellent job of elaborating on her history of endorsing bad science.

That was why I was so delighted when I heard that Opera Software has been receiving emails intended for Oprah for years. And they responded to them!

Hat tip to BoingBoing.

And finally...

The fool, or the fool who follows him?

Also, remember when Judgement Day happened last month? Well, apparently some people were a little upset about it. For example, this woman slashed her daughters throats with a box cutter. So... there's that.

Hat tip to Pharyngula.

Gavin Chandler is a childish, ignorant, libellous, contemptible moron.

2011-06-10T21:02:00.000-05:00

Source.

Non-believer? We need your help!

2011-06-07T13:20:00.002-05:00

"The Non-Believers' Beliefs – A Short Film"

If you identify as atheist, agnostic, non-theist, or non-believer of some fashion, then we want to talk to you! We are looking for non-believers that we can interview for a short film about what they do believe, and why; where do you get your morality and ethics from? What do you value?

Co-Producers Scott Carnegie and Gem Newman of the Winnipeg Skeptics are making this film which will premiere at the M.A.S.H. (Manitoba Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists) Film Festival at the Park Theatre on August 14^th.

If you are interested in being a part of this project, please contact Gem Newman (spurll@gmail.com) with your name, email address, phone number (cell preferred), and availability for the months of June and July; if you will be away on holidays please indicate the dates so that we can arrange schedules.

Addendum (15 August 2011): You can view the completed film here: The Nonbelievers' Beliefs.

Dowsing (is) for Dummies

2011-05-30T17:36:00.001-05:00

First rule of marketing: know your audience.

The Winnipeg Free Press recently ran a fluff piece about a man who is using dowsing rods to find dead bodies. In graveyards. As far as respectful criticism of the journalistic integrity of the Winnipeg Free Press goes, I think this about covers it:

If you're looking for less snark and more actual analysis of the article, Flora has a good post on the subject over at Subspecies. Check it out!

Grotesque Communist Nazi Teen Aviators in a Spaceship

2011-05-28T00:56:00.000-05:00

Seriously?

I recently watched an interview on the normally excellent Daily Show that annoyed me. So much so, in fact, that I was planning to write about it. But then I discovered that Donald Prothero had already done it for me.

So go read his account.

What to do in case the Rapture actually happens.

2011-05-21T10:53:00.000-05:00

So, this is it. Today is Judgement Day. Cry mightily unto God, and all that.

Apparently Jesus missed the Out Campaign lapel pin and the Godless t-shirt.

I suspect that some of my readers may not be heaven-bound, but in case you do get caught up in the Rapture, here are some things that you should keep in mind:

Don't ask awkward questions.

Saying things like "Why didn't you make the Bible a grand work of art and peerless scientific knowledge, rather than a backward text mostly indistinguishable from other factually inaccurate books of mythology written by ignorant, desert-dwelling peoples with a rather petty and provincial outlook?" will just get you in trouble.
Have some iron at the ready. Grab a cast iron frying pan (or similar object) as you're being Raptured. You may be able to use it to blackmail God into letting you into heaven. Iron is Jehovah's kryptonite. (Judges 1:19)
If you think that you might have committed just a few too many sins to get into heaven, try haggling.

When God initially decides to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins, Abraham gets the Lord to agree that if there are fifty righteous men among the cities, they shall be spared. Then, in a display that would forever mark the Jews as a thrifty people, Abraham spends the next six verses haggling God from fifty men down to ten. (Genesis 18:23–32)

So much for objective morality.
Renounce your family, and generally be a dick to them. Apparently Jesus likes that. (Luke 14:26)
If God really isn't having any of it and demands evidence that you were a righteous person, as a last resort you could always ask him to take your goodness on faith.

Am I the only one who wonders why images of the Rapture seem to always depict people (clothed or otherwise) floating upward? I thought that we'd got past that whole "heaven is in the clouds" thing by the time that we invented aeroplanes and space shuttles. Doesn't modern theology say that Heaven is in an alternate, nonphysical dimension or something?

Of course, Jesus was also taken up to heaven in Acts 1:9–11. Did he forget that it wasn't just hovering up there in the clouds? Or was heaven moved by the time aeroplanes were invented? Presumably the angelic chorus isn't a hazard for aircraft. I mean, what the hell, God?

Freedom of Expression

2011-05-20T12:22:00.000-05:00

Remember, you have no right to impose in-group rules, whether bizarre or mundane, on those who are not members of your group. I respect your right to follow the strictures of your religion, but your rights end where my rights begin.

Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullāh

If your response to criticism or perceived disrespect is violence rather than rational discussion, you are an intellectual coward.

Take it away, Thunderf00t:

You can view the Flickr photostream (NSFW) here.

Gifford-Jones and Placebos

2011-05-10T12:07:00.002-05:00

From the Winnipeg Free Press:

[Dr. Rachelle Buchbinder] recently reported in The New England Journal of Medicine about an operation called vertebroplasty.

During this surgery, medical "cement" was injected into a fractured spinal bone to provide extra strength to it. The surgeons hoped this approach would relieve back pain because compression fractures of the spine occur frequently in the elderly.

Thirty-six other patients believed they were undergoing the same procedure. But in their case, to mimic the effect of the operation, surgeons just tapped against the spine, making them believe the needle containing medical cement was being inserted into the spinal bone. To make it more authentic, they made sure the odour of the cement was present in the operating room.

Dr. Buchbinder says those patients who had the sham surgery reported they experienced the same relief of pain as those who had the real operation.

Interesting. So the treatment group fared no better than the control group. It's always nice to hear about the results of a negative study, because the file-drawer effect is a major problem in science publication.

Oh, wait—that's not the end of the article.

But how can this happen? It's believed the placebo effect depends on multiple factors, one being what's called "patient expectant effect."

In other words, if a patient is convinced an operation is going to relieve pain, the result will be better than that of a patient who doesn't think it will work.

The question is whether dummy treatment is fraudulent and should be relegated to history. Or should doctors use placebo therapy under certain circumstances? One needs the wisdom of Solomon to answer this question.

But let's end on a positive note. We also know that real surgical operations and medicines can kill you. To my knowledge, no one has ever lost his life from placebo treatment.

Oh, Gifford-Jones. It's like he goes out of his way to annoy me. After all, why engage in good medical journalism, when there's a readily available placebo?

I hear that the generic brand is just as effective.

Are placebos effective medical treatments?

No. At best, placebos are "effective" in roughly 30% of cases, and they are only "effective" on symptoms with a high psychological overlay (e.g., pain or nausea). Objective outcomes are not affected by placebo.

But here's the kicker: it isn't clear whether people are perceiving less pain or if they are simply reporting less pain.

When placebos do seem to affect objective outcomes, this effect occurs in the form of regression to the mean (when symptoms are at their worst, they tend to improve a little), the natural history of the disease (many diseases—colds, flus, etc.—get better on their own), or confirmation bias for good measure.

There is no evidence to suggest that the patient's expectation of benefit has any sort of "mind over matter" effect. Don't just take my word for it! For more information from an infectious disease specialist, see episode 5 of QuackCast.)

Placebos are used because they don't work.

That's the really important part. Placebos aren't used because they work; they're used because they're necessary to maintain blinding procedures in clinical trials, which prevents bias in patient, practitioner, and analyst. If no one knows whether they're receiving the treatment or not, no one can unintentionally (or intentionally) distort the results.

Even if placebos did work on some "mind over matter" principle, their use would probably require doctors to tell their patients that they are prescribing effective, science-based medical treatments. If doctors start lying to their patients, that could have a very real effect in eroding the trust between patient and practitioner. And that's not good for anybody.

When Gifford-Jones asks if doctors should use placebo therapy under certain circumstances, he's ignoring one of the central problems with the so-called "placebo effect": we don't know if placebos actually reduce the perception of pain, nausea, stiffness, etc., or if there's simply a bias in the reporting.

Why report a benefit?

Even if you don't experience any improvement with the treatment (or placebo), you may still report a slight benefit. Why? One potential explanation was highlighted quite nicely (albeit in a different context) in an excellent article on Feministe (NSFW language), which I'll paraphrase here:

People don't like saying "no". If you don't believe me, imagine for a moment the following scenario: you're over at a friend's house for dinner, picking delicately at your food, and your friend says, "I tried something different with the lasagne, this time 'round. Did you like it?" Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you're not fond of his pineapple lasagne. Which of the following responses are you more likely to give? "Ah, yeah, it wasn't too bad," or, "No."

I'll give you a more pertinent, real-life example.

My father used to practice what amounts to a form of therapeutic touch, or "energy healing". As a child, if I injured my wrist in a fall, for example, he'd clap his hands together, rub them briskly, and hold them on either side of the affected area. "Feel that?" he'd say, holding his hands about an inch above my skin. "Uh, I guess so," I'd mumble. I didn't feel anything, but I didn't know how to respond. I didn't know if there was something wrong with me, or if my father actually thought that his hands were magic; neither option was a good one. "Feeling better?" he'd prompt. "Yeah," I'd say, just wanting it to be over. "Yeah, I think it is, a little." It wasn't, but I didn't want to disappoint him.

The Bottom Line

My main problem with Gifford-Jones' reporting on this issue is that he is taking trials with negative results, and spinning them as if they are positive results.

When a treatment is demonstrated to be no better than placebo, you don't conclude that the placebo is also an effective treatment—you conclude that the treatment doesn't work! Unless you're studying acupuncture, anyway.

It's also important to remember that any benefit from the placebo effect is also present in a real medical intervention. And as Mitch Hedberg might say, "That's a double-whammy."

And placebos kill people all the time; they kill people through inaction. If you're undergoing a sham treatment, rather than an effective medical intervention, you could easily die. Don't believe me? Just visit whatstheharm.net.

Hat tip to Grant Rogerson for the link.

Do you want Dr. Oz to appear on the SGU?

2011-04-27T17:00:00.000-05:00

Dr. Steven Novella, clinical academic neurologist at Yale, executive editor of the Science-Based Medicine blog, senior fellow of the James Randi Educational Foundation, host of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, and all around badass, recently appeared on Dr. Oz's daytime soap opera. You can find the segment, in three easy-to-swallow 5-minute segments, here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

If you want to read Dr. Novella's take on the experience, you can do so here.

Surprisingly, the editing seemed very fair and Steve came out sounding eminently reasonable.

But the main problem with the show was unavoidable: Dr. Oz controlled the format, and Dr. Novella was only given brief periods in which he could respond to direct questions posed by the host. For example, I was annoyed that while Dr. Novella specifically called out that there is a large body of evidence that these therapies don't work, Dr. Oz insisted on responding as if he'd said that there isn’t any evidence that the therapies do work.

And so, Dr. Novella has invited Dr. Oz to appear on the SGU to continue the discussion. Phil Plait put the call out on twitter, and is asking everyone who's interested to encourage Dr. Oz to take some time to continue the dialogue.

Here is my contribution:

Dear Dr. Oz & team.

First off, many thanks for featuring Dr. Steven Novella on Tuesday's episode. Unfortunately, the limitations of the format prevented a more free-form discussion on the merits of alternative medicine. Dr. Novella has invited Dr. Oz to appear on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=3184), the most popular Science Podcast on iTunes, and winner of best science podcast in the podcast awards two years running.

I'd really love to hear a longer discussion, where Drs. Oz and Novella can have more time to clearly express their ideas! I hope that Dr. Oz considers the benefit that he could have if he reached out to the skeptical community in such a manner.

Many thanks.

Gem Newman
Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Do you have two minutes? Spend it encouraging Dr. Oz to continue the discussion on the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. You can do so at http://www.doctoroz.com/contact.

What was the "Sin of Sodom"?

2011-04-24T17:00:00.000-05:00

I'm an avid fan of Robert Price, as you may remember. I recently discovered that he has a podcast called The Bible Geek Show, and it is fascinating.

I recently sent the following email to Dr. Price:

Greetings, Dr. Price.

I'm currently going through your podcast archives (and enjoying it very much). On your episode from 7 November 2009, when discussing the Bible's view of homosexuality, you briefly went into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and stated that the Sin of Sodom was its neglect of needy travellers.

That's in accordance with Ezekiel 16:49, and I can see no problem with that. But you go on to say, "Every one of [the men of Sodom] comes to interrogate and lynch the visitors, whom they do not know to be angels." I'm unfamiliar with that interpretation of Genesis 19:5. It had always been my understanding that the men of Sodom were feeling a little... frisky. Indeed, the 2011 edition of the NIV says, "They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'" Certainly not as euphemistic as the KJV's, "bring them out unto us, that we may know them". Is this a mistranslation? I don't know how the NIV holds up to scrutiny, but I can only assume that it's better than King James.

But if the Sodomites (sigh...) were out for nothing more than a good, old fashioned lynching, why would Lot offer his virgin daughters to them, instead? (Granted, one might ask why he would offer his daughters to a rape gang, but at least that interpretation seems to make more sense in context, at least to me.) Would you mind elaborating on this a bit?

And on a completely unrelated note, I came across an audiobook recording of you reading "The Dunwich Horror" a few months ago, and I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoyed it. Thanks!

Gem Newman
Organiser, Winnipeg Skeptics

It turns out that the so-called Sin of Sodom probably had nothing to do with sex.

Curious? Dr. Price was kind enough to elaborate, and if you want to know what one particular Biblical scholar thinks on the subject, here's your answer—and it's a very interesting one. (Fast forward to 08:14 if you're impatient.)

Easter Sunday!

2011-04-24T11:15:00.000-05:00

Remember: you gotta shoot 'em in the head.

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Matthew 27:51–53 KJV)

Good Friday!

2011-04-22T13:30:00.000-05:00

Happy zombie weekend, everyone!

Good Friday, Friday!
Gotta die on Good Friday!
Everybody's watchin' me fall,
And they're not helping!

Good Friday, Friday!
Getting crucified-day!
Dad better be right about
My resurrection!

Suffering, suffering, yeah!
Suffering, suffering, yeah!

This is not fun—
Lookin' forward to Revelation!

Tip o' the thorny crown to Blag Hag.

The End is Nigh!

2011-04-15T10:07:00.001-05:00

According to Family Radio, Judgement Day (or "Judgment Day", if you're American) falls on 21 May 2011. The Bible guarantees it!

Unfortunately, I can find no such guarantee in the Bible. Mine must be defective.

How do you figure out Judgement Day again? What is it, like the Saturday after the first full moon on or after May 15^th? I guess that means that next year's apocalypse won't be until the 9^th of June. It's always a disappointment when we have to wait 'til June...

To learn more about the campaign, visit the Winnipeg Skeptics blog, where Scott has a nice, quick writeup.

Hat tip to my wife, who first spotted the billboard.

STORM: The Movie

2011-04-09T11:27:00.001-05:00

Tim Minchin's epic poem, now fully animated and available for free!

Hat tip to BoingBoing.

Pseudoscience is Green

2011-04-07T16:01:00.005-05:00

So Canada has a Federal election coming up. Again.

Canada's political climate is slightly more complex than some. The Liberals (centrist) and the Conservatives (fairly right) generally run the show, with the New Demoncratic Party (leftist) gaining limited traction in the west and the Bloc Québequois (also leftist) active in (where else?) Québec. (If you want a general idea where the parties fall on the political compass, you can check that out on Political Compass here. If you want to know where you fall with regard to those parties, visit the CBC's Vote Compass here.)

And then there's the Green Party. They currently have zero seats in parliament, but they run a candidate in every federal riding.

I don't have much of anything against the Green Party—I'm fond of nature, after all. I'm also fairly socialist (with some mild libertarian tendancies—figure that out), so that works out. The problem is, they tend to have a little trouble with the science. And hey, I'm sure that the other parties do, too. Feel free to point that out in the comments.

SENSE
This party makes none.

Case in point, the Green Party's 2010 Vision Statement:

We will promote complimentary health care – through support of chiropractic, naturopathic, homeopathic, and other non-western practices. The Green Party of Canada recognizes the value of good health as a fundamental human right, and also the key to the most vibrant, inclusive and sustainable Canadian society possible. (Page 81)

Phase out the use of genetically modified food products and 'terminator' seeds (Page 82)

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians. (Page 82)

Now, you may not agree with me about genetically engineered foodstuffs (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what they're talking about; even "organically" grown food is genetically modified), and that's fine. Although I think that the science is fine, there are some complex political and economic issues at play that are probably better discussed elsewhere.

But I must take issue with the Green Party's stance that they recognise "the value of
good health as a fundamental human right", while simultaneously promoting pseudoscientific codswallop in place of actual medicine. I think that the thing that annoys me most is that they lumped dietitians in there; that seems profoundly unfair to my favourite group of science-based nutrition specialists.

I wasn't planning to vote Green in any event, but I'm disappointed even so.

As I dared mention politics, please feel free to tell me why I'm wrong in the comments.

Tip o' the All Natural, Holistic, Integrative Political Party to Tim Herd.

Addendum: Tim informs me that the Green Party has released their 2011 Vision Statement (which I was unable to find yesterday). It's the same nonsense as last year:

Many Canadians do not have the necessary information, the tools, or the encouragement, to lead healthier lives. ... We will promote complimentary health care – through support of chiropractic, naturopathic, homeopathic, and other non-western practices. (Page 71)

All of the things that I called out about last year's Vision Statement are still present.

Again, there are plenty of things that I like about the Green Party. I think that their drug policy is eminently reasonable (and consistent), for example. But, as the commenter below remarked, "It's shit like this, Elizabeth May. It's shit like this".

Edit (29 July 2011): It's also worth pointing out, in a nit-picky sort of way, that both vision statements indicate that they support "complimentary" health care—that is to say, free health care (and fair enough). Obviously they meant complementary health care, which is a nicer way of saying "health care that is free from the burden of plausibility and evidence".

I Don't Believe in Ghosts

2011-04-06T22:14:00.000-05:00

Now, that may not seem like an incredibly controversial statement to you, but apparently there are people who do believe in ghosts, and they're liable to get rather touchy about it.

Warning: TL; DR. I'll be quoting fairly liberally, here. Because the conversation that I'm about to relate rambled a bit, I've reordered some of it to make it a bit more easier to read. If you're concerned that anyone's position has been misrepresented, I'll send you a (slightly redacted) screendump of the whole conversation. But trust me: you don't want that.

My favourite ghost.

On Facebook, a friend of mine recently posted that he "just saw a fucking ghost... actually!"

I was amused by the comment, of course, and didn't take it seriously. But then some of his friends started chiming in. "Dude, that's H-core!" said one. "Got the chills something fierce? hollow gut, dry mouth?" asked another—as if those were known symptoms of being badly startled by a ghost, rather than, say, being badly startled by anything at all.

My friend related the following story:

Friend: i thought that i had left the door at [work] unlocked so i grabbed my jacket and left my apartment with the intention of taking a taxi. as i turned down my block towards gilford i noticed the end of a black coat gliding into a doorway. i didn't really think much of it except that it was exceptionally black, not even the look of texture, just pure colour. that thought causing me to look sideways as i passed said doorway, only to see clearly that it was closed by a gate from threshold to arch; narrow and long; lit at the other end, and there was no movement for the length of the corridor. it may be necessary to mention that i was not wearing music, under the influence of drugs, or being passed by any automobile. i cannot begin to describe the crushing fear i felt when i saw the empty corridor, but it was epic. that moment absolutely changed every aspect of my reality. holy fucking shit

The first thing that I noted about this story was the hyperbole: the coat was "exceptionally black... just pure colour", and the experience "absolutely changed every aspect of [his] reality". That smacks of jolly good storytelling, rather than a dispassionate account of events. Which is fair enough. Also, my friend anticipated criticisms of his story, stating right from the outset that he was not distracted or inebriated in any way. Sure, I'll buy that. Unfortunately, that doesn't make this story ironclad evidence for the existence of ghosts.

Nor, I hasten to add, is it meant to be. My friend was simply relating an experience that he had. That's fine. I believe him! I simply am unconvinced by his assertion that his experience was caused by a ghost. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of mentioning that.

Gem: Although I believe that you probably experienced what you described, I see no reason to believe that it was a ghost.

Friend: sorry, i was too busy pooping in my jeans to gather ektoplasm :)

I was glad that he took my skepticism in stride; he's a laid back sort of guy.

Gem: Sure. With that in mind, however, I'm just wondering why you assume that what you saw was a ghost. Why not an alien, or a ninja assassin, or a shapeshifter, or Satan, or psychic bigfoot?

To me, this was the key point: sure, you saw something—but why assume that it was a ghost? Is every unidentified object in the sky an alien spacecraft? Every unexplained ripple in the pond a plesiosaur? Every snapped twig testament to the Sasquatch? Is that really the best explanation?

I continued:

Gem: There is zero evidence for the existence of the soul, there is no reason to believe that such a thing could persist after death even if it did exist, and no one has posited a cogent method by which a nonphysical entity could selectively interact with our physical universe.

This was where things got a little hairy. Some friends of his started to join the fray.

Nonphysical Entities

Response: Ideas are non physical entities and interact with our physical universe all the time.

Interesting. But not compelling, in my opinion.

Gem: If by "idea", you mean a specific state of consciousness (the image of a fox that appears in my "mind's eye" when I consider the phrase, "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog", for example), then I would disagree. In this sense, the "idea" of the fox is identical with a given brain state, and there is no need to posit additional entities (as William of Occam might say).

If you mean something more abstract, like the "idea" of a square, or the "idea" of the number "1", then I would classify that as a hypothetical construct: it exists as a description of the universe, not as an entity. But even if we suppose that these are nonphysical entities, I don't see that they do any "interacting" with the physical universe.

This friend-of-a-friend replied by asking, "Is a word an idea? Do words interact with the physical realm? is the idea of a rose the same as a rose?"

Sometimes, yes, and no.

If by "word" you mean ink on a page, or light modulated by liquid crystal, or certain series of pressure oscillations, then sure, words are physical and they interact with the physical world. When I read a word, corresponding changes occur in my visual cortices, which in turn affect other parts of my brain. When I hear a word, similar changes occur. Even if you are only thinking about a word, imagining it, it manifests physically in the brain.

But he continued:

Response: You posit that the idea of a fox is identical with a given brain state. This would posit that the same areas of the brain light up in every person whenever they think of the word fox. Do you have any evidence for such a supposition?

Nope, sure don't! Because that's not what I'm saying.

Gem: I'm saying that the idea of the fox that I have in my mind when I think of that phrase at a given time is identical with a given brain state. Because you would have a different idea of a fox (perhaps you imagine one that is brown, while I imagine one that is red; perhaps yours is more photorealistic than mine), it would stand to reason that you would have a different brain state, even if our brains were identical in structure (which they are not).

There is no one "idea" of a fox [unless you want to get Platonic on me]; that's part of my point. There are certain agreed-upon standards that disambiguate a fox from other similar animals, but they are ill-defined.

I'm interested in what you think. Are ideas physical? If not, can they be meaningfully said to interact with the physical universe?

The Evidence for Ghosts

Response: exactly. The word ghost is like the word fox, even more ambiguous. That does not take away from its usefulness both as a word and as a concept, nor does it take away from the possibility of one experiencing a state that someone might choose to tag with the word ghost.

Sure, I'm with you so far. Please continue.

Response: Gestalt and gross pattern recognition is how language is used, and how the mind experiences the world around it. You cannot write off an experience or understanding just because it doesn't fit narrow parameters set up a priori by an external minds.

Whoa, hey, now hold on a minute! I didn't write off anyone's experience. I said to my friend, "I believe that you probably experienced what you described." But I went on to state that I found his bald assertion that his experience was caused by a ghost to be unsupported by the available evidence, and I went on to make the case that ghosts are implausible.

Response: Ghosts and spirits have been witnessed all over the world since the dawn of recorded history. They are reported year after year.If this is the case, the choice is twofold. One, everyone who says they witness a ghost is a liar. Two, people are indeed witnessing something.

If people are witnessing something, you gain nothing in dismissing what they and many others claim to witness, but discover an interesting thread of inquiry if you stop to ask what people mean by the word "ghost" and analyse what convergences of sound and light and other physical phenomena lead people to believe in such things.

Okay, first of all, your argument from antiquity/popularity/anecdote isn't impressing anyone.

Secondly, are you serious? Either they actually saw something or they're liars? False dilemma, much? Who do you think you are? C.S. Lewis? As my friend Aron would say, "Are you trolling me, Dude?"

Gem: There are plenty of other options. A person may misinterpret what he or she sees, for example. A person may also misremember what happened. We are all prone to certain cognitive biases. The reason that we employ scientific methods of inquiry is that they tend to weed out bad data.

Response: I beg to differ. If you have something like, say for example the concept of love, which may be hard to operationalize in a lab, the fact that people from differing cultures over widely varying time periods have a similar concept, and that these concepts are culturally robust, it may indicate that the concept may be worthy of study. Correctness doesn't enter the equation. What becomes interesting is what people mean by the word love. They may mean all sorts of different things.

Cognitive bias is indeed part and parcel of how we all interact and interpret the world. These are lovely subsets of people witnessing something, and yes, figuring out why people would ascribe what they see to ghosts, or love, or any other word as a tag for interpreting the experience and relating to it is half the fun.

The scientific method of inquiry is a fantastic cognitive tool, and generates lovely results that can be quite robust. But it is not the only tool and is not always the tool best suited for analysing things like poetry, or music, or a lived experience.

And this is where I begin to realise that I'm truly, deeply, utterly, and completely wasting my time. But did that stop me? Of course not.

The "Experience" of a Ghost

It was at this point that my friend chimed in again:

Friend: i thank you both for your colourful commentary; the only thing that i can state with certainty is that i experienced a phenomenon which leads me to believe that i encountered a clearly visible, and yet non-physical entity. although what kind of entity i cannot say with certainty, and i would like to believe that what i experienced (or a similar encounter) could be measured by science (scientific method and measure)

Gem: If this is true, then you are proposing that an entity can be both visible and nonphysical. The problem with that is that, given our current understanding of the world, an entity must be physical in order for it to be visible; if you want to see it, you have to bounce a photon off of it (or at least bend the path of the photon a little). So you're proposing that either photons can bounce off of nonphysical entities or that your eyes can detect something other than light. This is possible, of course, but I find alternative explanations of your experience more convincing.

Friend: i find it hard to believe that we as a skeptical community have adequately equipped ourselves to monitor or measure things that the vast majority have trained themselves to disbelieve.

Gem: I think that it's worth noting that I, myself, have had "ghost experiences"... But I find them to be unconvincing. They are only anecdotes—they don't amount to data. Where the evidence leads, my beliefs follow. I don't believe in leprechauns, but if one showed up at my door with a pot of gold, I'd be happy to investigate his claims as long as he was willing to participate in such an investigation.

Friend: such data would likely be then chalked up to glitches, erroneous rememberings, or any other sort of "rationalisation" of the denial of the existance of said target.

Gem: The thing is, we know that memories are very, very mutable, that our sensory apparatus play constant tricks on us, and that we are subject to a host of cognitive biases that prevent us from being reliable witnesses to our surroundings. I WANT to believe in ghosts. I WANT to believe that I'll get to continue existing after this pale, frail flesh-sack that I call a body has gone to dust. But I also WANT to be a millionaire; that doesn't make it so. When you're claiming something as implausible and fantastical as the existence of spirits, anecdotes aren't sufficient for evidence.

Friend: also, i believe that the onus is on the denyer of the experience to validate his claim that my experience is inaccurate. if my experience does not benefit or describe yours, you may be quick to disbelieve it. as is your right as a being. but you have the choice to debate and should you choose to do so, then you, and only you, have the duty to provide evidence.

Gem: Then you don't understand the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the claimant... What you're saying amounts to, "You can't prove that I'm wrong!" Well... you can't prove that the universe wasn't created by the almighty Cosmic Blue Cheese.

Friend: for all i can accurately measure, neither of you exist, and i am in an asylum right now having a three way conversation with myself.

Gem: Solipsism is boring. Of course it's possible, but it's also unfalsifable and useless.

Friend: however that attitude is not useful to my experience, so i choose to act otherwise.

Gem: Exactly!

Friend: having recently had an experience which disengaged me from the "scientific" method of explanation (i.e. said "ghost"), i find it prudent to currently be wearing a star of david; an ancient symbol to invoke positive, and protect against negative, forces of energy.

Gem: Why do you find that prudent? Has it been demonstrated to be effective? Again, this is the logical fallacy known as the argument from antiquity. Blood-letting and purging are ancient systems of medicine; they are also dangerous and generally ineffective. It's also worth noting that "energy" is the capacity of a system to perform work. You seem to be using the term in a hand-wavy way common in the New Age movement that is ultimately meaningless.

Friend: call me a skeptic (wink at gem), but science falls short of describing the more lucid aspects of MY reality.

Gem: I'm not sure that "lucid" means what you think that it means.

In the meantime, my friend's friend had more to say.

Conceptual Ghosts

Gem: We have to separate the concept of a fox (which exists as a brain state) from an actual instance of a fox (which exists physically as a collection of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and various other trace elements).

Many entities "exist" in two senses: they exist physically and they exist conceptually (although we may continue to quibble with regard to whether "conceptual" existence qualifies as a subset of physical existence). You would probably agree that certain entities (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, werewolves, dragons, unicorns, etc.) exist ONLY conceptually, and are not instantiated with physical existence. I have no problem with the assertion that ghosts exist in the same sense that leprechauns exist; that is to say, they exist as concepts, which is basically no existence at all.

I'm not asserting that ghosts do not exist; I'm saying that I have no reason to believe that they do. If they did exist, I'd be curious to know what they are made of. Presumably you don't mean to imply that they are conceptual only.

Response: What is the difference between a ghost sighting and love, or any other abstraction of the world? Ghosts clearly exist on some level, as many people can tell you they see them, or have seen them, whether that be due to cultural preconditioning or not. Are they a thought, or are they an entity? Maybe both. I'd say ghosts are the epitome of a hard to pin down phenomenon. Perhaps ghosts exist on a level that is more akin to a thought than a chair. Perhaps they exist in the cultural mind.

Gem: Sure. They definitely exist on the conceptual level, along with the Minotaur and the Cyclops. Who cares? ANYTHING can exist conceptually. The important question is whether they manifest IN REALITY.

If you believe that if a large number of people report seeing a thing, that thing exists, presumably you also believe in aliens, demons, gwyllion, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and reptilian shape-changers?

Response: ‎As for aliens, demons, gwyllion, etc. they are robust cultural forms of classifying an experience that happens to people.

Gem: So you're arguing that when someone talks about a demon, they are not attempting to describe an entity that literally exists, but only an experience that they had? This strikes me as nonstandard usage. Is the same true of a cat? If I say, "I saw a cat", am I talking about a "robust cultural form of classifying an experience"? Or do you assume that I'm indicating an entity that exists in the material universe?

Response: How would you set up a protocol for the investigation of what people mean when they say "I saw a ghost"? How do you interpret that statement?

Gem: You wouldn't. However, you CAN set very realistic protocols to test those who claim to be able to communicate with ghosts. Unfortunately, such mediums invariably fail.

You can also investigate claims of hauntings. Several legitimate paranormal investigators (such as Joe Nickell) do this on a regular basis; usually, the paranormal event can be adequately explained without appeal to the supernatural. Sometimes they are not sufficiently explained—but when a murder is not sufficiently explained we don't just assume that it was perpetrated by aliens; similarly, when a sighting or sound is unexplained we shouldn't leap to the conclusion that it was the result of the spirits of the deceased.

It went back and forth like that for a while. He accused me of knocking down straw-men, and I accused him of hand-waving and being unwilling to concede that there was a difference between ghosts existing conceptually and ghosts actually existing. When I mentioned that spirits are not required to explain any physiological function of the mind, he said, "Straw man again. Who has proposed this purpose?"

Gem: Have you never heard of mind-body dualism? This is Philosophy of Mind 101. Philosophers and theologians have proposed the soul as the seat of consciousness for thousands of years, and many seized upon Descartes' formulation of substance dualism. I can provide citations, if you'd like.

I rapidly tired of this conversation after that. My fatigue did not abate when my friend chimed in with this paragraph that would make Charlie Sheen proud:

also i read your blog, i found it very convincing as to the questionability of our broad theories about the universe. i think that were i in your shoes, i would seriously look deeper into those events, and research things similar in anecdote, as that's often a good place to start. i did not mean to posit that "ghosts" exist, merely to say that i saw something so convincing i almost threw up. i will be deeply researching metaphysical claims BECAUSE of my experience to support them, not IN SPITE of my experiences that deny them. why narrow, when we see the chance to justify, and prove that broadening was necessary. maybe the real definition of psychic bigfoot is what i saw, we just didn't know that he could psychic himself etherial, and then invisible. why, he could even make himself look like bigfoot!

The Bottom Line

If when you say "ghost", you mean a set of human experiences, rather than an entity that manifests literally outside of a person's brain, then my only quibble is that the definition that you use is going to be confusing to other people.

But if that's not what you mean, I'll let Picard show you the door.

But before signing off, my friend did have something very wise to say: "perhaps believing is seeing, or at least the first step towards it."

True dat.

If this post is too long for you, I'll let Randi sum it up:.

xkcd gets it right.

2011-04-06T07:59:00.004-05:00

As usual.

Go to xkcd.com and buy some stuff.

...

2011-04-01T11:12:00.001-05:00

So, remember how Pastor Terry Jones promised not to burn the Koran? And remember how he did it anyway?

Well, here's an update from the New York Times.

Protesters angered by the burning of a Koran by a fringe American pastor in Florida mobbed offices of the United Nations in northern Afghanistan on Friday, killing ten foreign staff members and beheading two of the victims, according to an Afghan police spokesman.

This is horrific.

The attack began immediately after Friday morning prayers, the mob apparently forming as worshippers exited their mosques. Although it's only a guess, that certainly smells like incitement to me.

I think that it bears mentioning that there is a difference between explanation and exculpation. The fact that these events were directly related to Pastor Jones' actions in no way serves to excuse the insane, fanatical murderers who massacred people who were completely unrelated to the event that they were protesting.

I'm not planning to burn any holy books any time soon. I remain committed to freedom of speech, and I hope that I live to see a world in which burning your own property is not considered sufficient justification for murder.

"Are You Saved? Do You Know?"

2011-03-28T12:08:00.001-05:00

In my experience, downtown Winnipeg bus stops are usually littered in equal parts with discarded Tim Hortons cups, bottles of mouthwash, Bible tracts, and copies of The Watchtower. I have a tract here that I found at just such a bus stop, and I figured that I might as well give it a read. It's no Chick tract (although Chuck and Leighton have dissected those in the past, here and here), but it'll have to do.

Tracts are all the fun of a Jehovah's Witness, but with the portability of a sandwich wrapper. Generally speaking, they tend to assume that you're a lapsed theist of some sort, and you just need to be reminded that Jesus needs you to polish his sandals; they rarely even offer any actual rationale for believing in a deity.

Let's play along, shall we? "Er, I don't know. Whatever do you mean? Saved from what?"

Do you know that the Bible teaches that all men are born in sin, and are naturally inclined to do evil?

"Gasp! I had no idea! Plus you've backed up your assertion with evidence, straight from the Bible!"

Do you know that until you demonstrate that a deity exists and he is particularly fond of your book, appeals to the Bible will remain unpersuasive?

Do you know that the Bible teaches that God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, and is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved?

"Golly gee whiz, you're kidding! God is truly merciful!"

Well, since God is purportedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, he knows exactly what it would take for me to "come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved", it is within his power to convince me, and he is inclined to spare me eternal torment. Strangely, he has yet to prevent any evidence.

Strange.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that God's plan of salvation is very simple and effective?

"Just like homeopathy and the Q-Ray pendant! Cool!"

Seriously, though, one would assume that God's plan would be sensible, efficient, and efficacious; he is, after all, the supreme creator of the cosmos, who is a perfect incarnation of the appearance that a leader should have.

God's plan is simple and effective: it involves creating a race that is, after all, only human, yet holding them to an impossibly high ethical standard. After ejecting the humans from paradise for having the audacity to seek to know right from wrong, God no doubt realises his mistake and drowns just about every living being on the planet. He then lays down 613 hopelessly confused rules and regulations to a small band of desert-dwelling savages and instructs them to spread the good word by slaughtering as many of their neighbours as possible.

A few thousand years later, much to his chagrin, God notes that people are still having trouble following the rules: they're still enjoying ham and cheese sandwiches and blended fabrics and the like. Rather than simply drowning everyone again, however, he decides to wander around the desert for a bit and see if he can't talk some sense into people. Instead of creating a body the old-fashioned way (sculpting one out of dust and breathing on it), he decides to impregnate a woman without her permission (always a winning strategy). Once born, he walks around the desert for a bit, introduces his disciples to communism, and then is brutally slaughtered by the Romans and/or Jews.

But that's all part of the plan. You see, even though he makes the rules, he can't forgive people without human sacrifice. So long as you recognise that you are unworthy scum and admit that you don't deserve life, God will forgive you for the egregious sin of simply existing, and will admit you to the great amusement park in the sky—but only if you don't have any trouble believing in precisely the right version of the events described above.

Not to worry, though, because God, in his literally infinite wisdom, provided us with evidence that this is all true, in a badly-preserved, consistently mistranslated book with a decidedly provincial outlook that contradicts many major branches of scientific inquiry and endorses a moral code that would make Genghis Khan blush.

Yes, simple and effective are precisely the words that I would use to describe that plan.

Do you know that the Bible teaches a saving experience that you may know you are saved?

"That sounds great! Subjective experience is always more reliable than independently verifiable evidence!"

I've never had a "religious experience" that I can recall, but I've spoken with those who have. By and large, the feelings that they describe are similar to those that I experience when listening to power metal or watching Zach Snyder's adaptation of Watchmen (I know, I know, there's no accounting for taste). I've heard Matt Dillahunty express similar sentiments.

Personal, subjective experiences are unreliable.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person has fruits as evidence of his salvation?

"You mean that if I convert, God will give me stuff? Just like Santa? Neato!"

Presumably God will also ensure that such fruits are completely exempt from confirmation bias.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person is in danger of being deceived and of losing his salvation again?

"Gosh... Well, I'd better stop thinking critically, then; I wouldn't want to lose my way!"

The message here seems to be: once you've made up your mind, never change it.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that God has a plan by which to keep your soul?

"Great! I guess that means that I don't have to worry about it!"

As we've seen, God's plans have a marked tendency to be fairly strange—and to be incidentally beneficial to those who claim to be his messengers. Weird.

Do you know that the Bible teaches that a saved person is active, mission-minded, and in appreciation of his salvation endeavours to help others find their Saviour too?

"Wait a second... That sounds like work! You tricked me!"

Of course it does; otherwise, how would the meme propagate itself?

"Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord..."

Even though this Isaiah quotation is often used by disingenuous apologists, I still kind of like it. If only the writers of this pamphlet actually understood what "reason" was...

So, am I saved? Probably not. That said, I have no reason to believe that the author of this tract is, either, nor have I any reason to believe that there is anything from which salvation is necessary.

More tracts to come!

Bravo, BioWare

2011-03-25T15:02:00.000-05:00

I've been a huge fan of BioWare games ever since a high-school friend introduced me to Baldur's Gate. I was enormously fond of Dragon Age: Origins, and although I was disappointed by some of the changes that were made for Dragon Age II, I've found it to be an altogether enjoyable game.

One of the aspects of the Dragon Age games that has impressed me most is the way that inter-character romances are handled: when interacting with the player character, some NPCs are clearly heterosexual, while others are attracted to characters of the same gender*. The fact that the game doesn't tiptoe around (or simply ignore) LGBT issues deserves high praise in my opinion, and serves to expand gameplay options while at the same time doing its small part to destigmatize homosexual relationships.

Unfortunately, this choice on the part of the developers isn't without its detractors. Take this post from the BioWare forums, for example:

To summarize, in the case of Dragon Age 2, BioWare neglected their main demographic: The Straight Male Gamer.

I don’t think many would argue with the fact that the overwhelming majority of RPG gamers are indeed straight and male. Sure, there are a substantial amount of women who play video games, but they’re usually gamers who play games like The Sims... That’s not to say there isn't a significant number of women who play Dragon Age ... but there should have been much more focus in on making sure us male gamers were happy.

...

The fact that a "No Homosexuality" option, which could have been easily implemented, is omitted just proves my point.

Seriously? So you're saying that you want your video game to have an option that will make all gay characters straight?

BioWare's response, however, was pitch-perfect:

The romances in the game are not for "the straight male gamer". They're for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don't need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant... and that's ignoring the idea that they don't have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The "rights" of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent "right" to get more options than anyone else.

...

And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as "political correctness" if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.

...

And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least. And that's my opinion, expressed as politely as possible.

David Gaider, the BioWare rep. quoted above (and lead writer for DA:O and DA2), got it right when he said, "an ignorant opinion politely expressed doesn't make it less ignorant".

For more commentary, go here.

Hat tip to Kyle Eros.

* I believe that these characters are actually all programmed to be bisexual, at least in Origins, but I'm not certain.

SoS Presents: An Ode to the Brain

2011-03-23T13:37:00.000-05:00

I love Symphony of Science.

What makes medicine "alternative"?

2011-03-16T09:50:00.000-05:00

From Hua Shou's "Expression of the Fourteen Meridians".
Public domain image courtesy of Wikipedia.

A friend of mine recently sent me this quick email.

What makes a medicine conventional or alternative ?
Or maybe neither.

Thoughts ?

As I was packing for a trip to Cuba at the time, I had to be brief. Here was my reply:

"Conventional", "allopathic", and "Western" are all (generally derisive) labels that are applied to science-based medical practices. Conversely, "alternative" or "complementary" or "integrative" medical practices are generally those that are eschewed by the science-based crowd. The labels used are meant to present a false equivalence to the consumer, implying that "alternative" medicine is just as good as "conventional" medicine. Some completely reasonable, evidence-based practices (such as good diet, exercise, etc.) are presented as "alternative" health practices, even though they are commonly recommended by mainstream medical practitioners.

To quote John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind."

Generally, "alternative" health practices are those that have not been shown to be effective in rigorous, well controlled, properly blinded scientific studies. Here's the key point: Once something has been shown to work, it becomes part of "conventional" medicine. On the other side of that coin, "alternative" medicines generally resist change, and refuse to admit defeat when the evidence shows them to be ineffective. Homeopathy is a prime example. Acupuncture is another (although acupuncture is tough, because there is some evidence to show that it does work; the problem is, almost all of the positive studies are for electro-acupuncture, which is actually not acupuncture at all but simply a TENS unit, an real medical treatment for pain).

To quote Tim Minchin, "By definition ... alternative medicine ... has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."

...

For more information, I highly recommend checking out the Science-Based Medicine blog at sciencebasedmedicine.org.

I hope that helps!

Plants are people, too!

2011-03-15T11:53:00.002-05:00

I'm a vegetarian. If you're interested in my rationale, I recommend listening to episode 43 of Reasonable Doubts; although Singer and I aren't entirely on the same page, the doubtcasters' discussion of Singer's work was what convinced me to forgo eating meat. And I'm still mad at them for it.

I'm not a preachy vegetarian. In fact, I don't even like to self-identify as a vegetarian, because there are a lot of granola kooks out there.* But I'm not shy about expressing my opinion when I feel that it's warranted.

From Haeckel's Kunstformen der Natur. Public domain image courtesy of Wikipedia.

I was sort of looking forward to this article in the New York Times, because I really miss eating meat and I'd love an excuse to start it up again.

But then I read it. Even the title annoyed me:

No Face, but Plants Like Life Too

No, no they don't. As far as we've been able to determine, you need a nervous system in order to "like" something. I eat plants, and avoid eating animals, because we have no evidence that plants suffer in the way that animals do when we slaughter them.

But just like a chicken running around without its head, the body of a corn plant torn from the soil or sliced into pieces struggles to save itself, just as vigorously and just as uselessly, if much less obviously to the human ear and eye.

Seriously?

When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants.

I don't see how any of this is relevant. Those are evolutionary adaptations geared toward increasing the biological fitness of the plant and its relatives; when these defences aid in gene propagation, the defences are passed on. That does not mean that the plant "wants" to survive, because there is no evidence that plants "want" anything, and indeed they do not possess any of the organs that as far as we can tell are required in order to want something.

If you want to look at these "protection mode" adaptations in a fair light, the fight-or-flight response in animals is probably analogous. So ask yourself this: when you are in a job interview, or when you're talking to a pretty person of the opposite (or same) sex, or when you're being grilled by your boss about how you spent that sick day last week, do you want your heart to start racing and your palms to start sweating?

No, probably not. But it's a biological adaptation that was evidently evolutionarily useful. Even when you're running from a mugger, the fight-or-flight response isn't something that you call upon; it's an automatic response that occurs irrespective of our desires. The fact that plants are subject to evolutionary pressures (just as we are) doesn't mean that they "want" to not be eaten.

Maybe the real problem with the argument that it’s O.K. to kill plants because they don’t feel exactly as we do, though, is that it’s the same argument used to justify what we now view as unforgivable wrongs. Slavery and genocide have been justified by the assertion that some kinds of people do not feel pain, do not feel love — are not truly human — in the same way as others.

Seriously? You've elected to go the Godwin route? You're equating salad to the holocaust and slavery? I'm not offended; I just want to make it clear where we stand.

Any reasonable person can see (and could, at the time, if they cared to look) that Jews, Africans, and any other subjugated, enslaved, or otherwise downtrodden people were capable of the same feelings as anyone else. But not only is there no plausible mechanism for plants to have the same (or similar) feelings, there is substantial evidence that they couldn't have any analogous feelings.

For example, physicians once withheld anesthetics from infants during surgery because it was believed that these not-quite-yet-humans did not feel pain (smiles were gas, remember).

Okay. And as soon as you demonstrate that plants do feel pain, then I will reassess my position.

* Edit: Mike pointed out that using a term like "granola kook" to could damage my credibility here. In retrospect, I realise that it's probably not going to help.

It was an off-hand remark that I should probably clarify: for whatever reason, vegetarianism seems to correlate rather highly with many beliefs that I don't share, and although it's probably unreasonable for people to assume that I share these beliefs (that natural is better, for example) simply because I'm vegetarian, people seem to do so anyway.

Even so, that's probably not a good reason for me to avoid using the term "vegetarian"; it seems to me like that's akin to avoiding calling yourself an atheist because you're worried what people might think. And regardless of the correlation, I seem to be engaging in fairly base stereotyping.

Interesting.

The Ghost of Carl Sagan

2011-03-10T12:43:00.001-06:00

Image credit: me.

I've mentioned Ghost Carl Sagan briefly before (when I told some ghost stories, and again in my incredibly long-winded talk to the Humanist Association of Manitoba), but until today I was completely unaware of this short article in The Onion:

Appearing as a hovering, wraith-like vision above the Cornell University Physics Building where he taught for years, the ghost of recently deceased astronomer/author Carl Sagan warned former colleagues Monday against a belief in superstition. "Exercise skepticism!" Sagan said, clanking a large metal chain. "Whenever possible, there must be independent confirmation of all facts pertaining to any so-called 'magical' or 'mystical' event or phenomenon!"

Hat tip to Dustin Hildebrandt.

Edit: As the previous Ghost Sagan picture was rife with compression artefacts, I replaced it with a much nicer PNG version, above. You can find the original here.

Felicia Day is the Best Active Ingredient of All

2011-03-03T14:16:00.000-06:00

Someone posted this on the Winnipeg Skeptics Meetup site, and I couldn't resist reposting it.

Putting Homeopathy into Perspective... with the help of Felicia Day.

Hat tip to Kyle Eros.

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg: Videos, Part 4

2011-02-28T19:12:00.000-06:00

Scott Carnegie has posted another round of SkeptiCamp videos at the Winnipeg Skeptics Blog. (And here are links to parts one, two, and three!)

Ashlyn Noble: "Five Crazy Pseudosciences You've Never Heard Of!"

Leslie Saunders: "How to Fake a UFO Picture"

After Leslie's presentation, we actually got to make our own UFOs! It was plenty of fun, and we managed to capture a few great examples on camera. Here are some of the best. These pictures are exactly as they appeared to the camera; none have been Photoshopped. I prefer GIMP, anyway.

Spooky. I think that alien spacecraft are the most likely explanation for those photos. Prove me wrong!

SkeptiCamp Winnipeg: Videos, Part 3

2011-02-25T08:48:00.000-06:00

Scott Carnegie has posted a third round of SkeptiCamp videos at the Winnipeg Skeptics Blog. (And here are links to part one and part two, in case you missed them.)

Laura Creek Newman: "Nutritional Facts and Fallacies: Superfoods"

Donna Harris: "Why Vaccinations are So Important"