Richard Dawkins managed to get on the front pages this week by helping to subsidise the UK’s first ‘Atheist Camp’ for 8-17 year old children. Created as an antidote to traditional faith based camps run by various churches and the Scouts (didn’t realise the Scouts were particularly religious but apparently they pray from time to time) the camp will teach critical thinking and evolution alongside the usual activities such as canoeing, getting sunburnt and being stung by wasps. Sounds like a great idea. In fact Dawkins hasn’t really got that much to do with it – he just put up some money to help out, but that didn’t stop the usual torrent of abuse in his direction. I imagine he’s pretty used to it by now.
In other news The Sun, that erstwhile bastion of truth and light, has surveyed 1000 of it’s readers and found that 60% of them had visited a medium, 40% believed their star signs and 90% believe in ghosts. It also said 72% believed they had psychic powers themselves. Not sure if this is depressing or just confirms my suspicions about Sun readers.
Meanwhile in Melbourne, a nightclub that has been getting a lot of bad press due to violent incidents taking place there (including two murders, brawls etc etc) has sorted out its problems by calling upon a psychic to ‘banish evil spirits’ from the venue. Apparently five separate malign forces were discovered and sent packing. Although as one wit noted in true Aussie style, they would probably be better off blacklisting all the w**nkers who go there in the first place.
I’ve recently come across a couple of cases here in England in which homeopathy supporters have had to make public and embarrassing climbdowns, a Good Thing in my book. The first is from last year but may not have received much coverage in NZ.
Neal’s Yard Remedies is a fairly large chain of stores selling “organic skin and body care and natural remedies” – they have 52 outlets worldwide and sell their products in many more including some of the UK’s biggest pharmacists. They are also, unsurprisingly, pretty keen on homeopathy. However perhaps not quite so keen as they used to be.
Recently it came to light that they were selling a couple of homeopathic remedies advertised as being malarial prophylactics. Now it’s one thing to claim homeopathy might cure your hay fever or stop dandruff, but it’s quite another to claim it will stop you getting malaria. Every year malaria kills over a million people and up to 500 million people are affected by it. That’s a pretty serious disease. The BBC’s ‘Inside Out’ programme took it upon themselves to investigate why Neal’s Yard were able to sell such products – the clip is below.
The best bit is at around 5 minutes in, where Susan Curtis, Neal’s Yard’s medicine director tries to justify the chain selling the anti-malaria remedies. Her reasoning is akin to the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa convinces Homer to buy a rock that wards off bears (or possibly tigers, something with big teeth and claws anyway). ‘How do I know it works’ asks Homer? ‘Well, you don’t see any bears around here do you’? Sold!
Curtis claiming that the remedies work because she used them when she went to India and didn’t get malaria is priceless. She couldn’t even say whether she was bitten by a malarial mosquito – then gets the hump and walks out of the interview. Not much of an advocate for Neal’s Yard. As a side note I’ve just been in India for six months, took absolutely no anti-malarial medication at all (perhaps foolishly) and also didn’t get malaria. I’m not sure what Curtis would make of that.
The upshot? Neal’s Yard were found to be acting illegally and were forced to remove the two remedies from their shelves, although scarily they had been available for the last twenty years!
The second case involved The University of Westminster in London being forced to scrap it’s BSc degree in Homeopathy. Now I was fairly amazed they even offered such a course but apparently they did, partly justifying it by claiming a third of teaching involved detailed biomedical studies. It attracted a fair amount of flak from others in the academic world but not enough for the course to be stopped. In fact what killed it off finally was the encouraging fact they just couldn’t get enough students signed up to justify running it. Reason for optimism indeed!
As advertised on the recent episode of the Skeptic Zone, a Skeptics in the Pub has been planned for those with a skeptical inclinition who are living in Christchurch. On Monday the 8th of June 2009 the inaugural Skeptics in a Pub will be taking place at 6:00pm at The Twisted Hop situated at 6 Poplar Street. With 20 people confirmed going and a further 11 maybes it should be a good night! For more information go to meetup.com.
Recently “New Zealand’s best known homeopath” (I have never heard of her – perhaps I don’t watch enough television), Gwyneth Evans featured on Breakfast on TV One to respond to the criticisms made by Dr Shaun Holt that homeopathy only operates due to the placebo effect.
I would hope that the average New Zealander would watch this clip and not require a deep understanding of science or the scientific method to see homeopathy for what it is – wishful thinking.
While briefly explaining the underpinning framework for homeopathy, Mrs Evans says that it has been around for 200 years. The only comment I have in response to this is that I am pleased that due to modern medicines reliance on the scientific method, it has done away with bloodletting, the theory of four humours, and astrological influences on medicine.
However, rather than presenting a general critique of homeopathy (if you are interested then have a read of Dr Stephen Barrett’s article) I want to touch upon some of the things raised by Mrs Evans.
When asked about the efficacy of homeopathy, her reply is that rather than relying upon a crude physiological drug, there is a homeopathic energy or vibration that is retained in the substance that triggers the bodies own innate healing power.
As with most woo, once again ‘energy’ is presented as some kind of magical field or property (for which there is no scientific evidence of). To borrow the term used by Brian Dunning, energy is a measurement of something’s ability to perform work. It is not some all encompassing field that impacts upon vials of water sold as medicine or people, in this respect there is a distinct common misunderstanding about what ‘energy’ actually is.
Consider Einstein’s well known and little understood equation of E=MC2, mass can be expressed in grams and speed in metres per second. So simply put an objects energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few metres in a few seconds. Energy is a measurement of work, not some bizarre made up energy field akin to the Force from Starwars.
With this in mind, it simply does not make any logical sense to say that the water retains the energy or the vibrations of original substance it contained and that it somehow interacts with the body’s ‘energy’.
Furthermore, if it did indeed trigger the body’s innate healing power, then this should be something that can be scientifically observed and I am still waiting on the evidence for this and the underlying theory about its mechanism.
While I am on this subject, further on into the interview Mrs Evans is asked about the scientific evidence for homeopathy, and she pulls out the old “it’s a different paradigm” card. What she means is that the homeopathic community has decided that the rigorous testing that science demands no longer applies to them as it has a different understanding of disease and health when compared to evidence based practises.
I would hazard a guess that the reason for such an attitude is because there is very little scientific evidence for her discipline, if the scientific evidence supported homeopathy, do you think that homeopaths would be saying that the positive results did not apply to them as their paradigm cannot be measured by science? On the contrary they would be quick to trumpet the results.
It is quite simple, there is no paradigm shift, homeopathy claims to cure people of illness and therefore its effects are measurable. Homeopathy claims to trigger an innate healing ability and therefore there is a physiological response, which requires a mechanism.
In Thursday’s letter to the editor section of the Dominion Post, there was a response to the proposed guidelines to allow students to opt out of religious activities in New Zealand’s public schools.A letter written by Jeff Tallon of Muritai says:
The Human Rights Commission’s draft guidelines on religious education state that everyone’s beliefs should be treated respectfully and all views are equally valid (Jan 10-11).
Though I don’t support compulsory religious education, the commission’s position is questionable.All views are not equally valid – we must apply rational tests to beliefs.
The commission has painted itself into an empty corner.It is really asserting that no religious system is true or can be taken to be true and so none should take precedence.
But this ignores the rational basis for faith.One hundred and fifty years ago, Christian/Jewish faith was essentially a blind belief in ancient stories.But that has changed.Archaeology, epigraphy, ancient history, astronomy and even modern cosmology and molecular biology present a powerful body of evidence for traditional Christian faith.And if a religious system is true in the historical, scientific sense, then perhaps it deserves precedence.
Our national position on religious education comes from our commitment to secular government, not because faith has not rational basis, and definitely not because of tacit assumptions that all religious faiths are untrue.
While I appreciate that the short word length expected of a letter to the editor means that it is difficult for all the evidence to be laid out, the writer of the letter appears to be believe that a rational basis for Judeo-Christian beliefs can be found throughout the sciences.The initial question that comes to mind is what particular brand of belief is he referring to, as many different denominations accept or reject (or as a middle-ground, accept as metaphor) a wide variety of Biblical passages.They also have different concepts of God and other supernatural beliefs.Is he referring to the ‘evidence’ that shows that the Earth was created 6000 years ago according to the Book of Genesis or the scientific evidence that it was created 4.5 billion years ago?
Such a sweeping scientific claims are hollow as there is no scientific consensus across all of the disciplines mentioned that anything supernatural could account for observations or discoveries that have been made.One could employ the logical fallacy of final consequences and say that the Christian faith must be true as the perfect nature of the universe is a testament to God’s ability for creation.Perhaps it is the argument from personal incredulity, in that the writer believes that due to the complex nature of the world that no other explanation apart from God is possible.Such arguments are implied through the use of such a broad range of scientific disciplines to support the rational basis of the Christian faith.Of course such arguments are invalid and therefore have no rational basis.
What is clear from the scientific evidence through the application of cosmological, geological, and biological observation and theory is that supernatural forces are not required for the existence of the universe, the Earth, or people.The current scientific thinking across all disciplines does not provide support for the proposition that omnipotent Gods, demons, or angels have previously (or currently) impacted upon the lives of people.
Many claims made within the Bible, while theoretically possible to test, are now impossible to test due to the passage of time and all that remains is faith on the part of the particular religions followers.The few things that have been amenable to testing, such as the shroud of Turin, have proven to be at best controversial and at worst shown to be medieval forgery.
Furthermore, apologists from a variety of other religions as varied as Islam, Mormonism, and Scientology would make similar claims about the validity of the scientific underpinnings of their religions.
Mr Tallon has made an assumption that the underlying rationale for the guidelines is that all religious faiths are equally untrue.The employment of such guidelines does not say anything about the veracity of a religious position.Rather it reinforces the secular nature of our Government and our country, while allowing those minority groups with different belief structures freedom from pressure to conform to the religious beliefs of another group.
A person going by the name of Boris Kreiman has whipped up the www.stopsylviabrowne.com domain while its owner, Robert Lancaster is recovering from a serious stroke that he suffered some months ago.
Initially a psychic service operated by Kreiman was put on the site that directed users to www.lifepsychic.com.Upon being informed of his actions (presumably in many colourful words from many angry sceptics) he offered to sell the site back for $20,000.When his offer was (unsurprisingly) refused he then tried to sell it on Ebay.
Hi My name is GM Boris Kreiman and I did buy domain Stopsylviabrowne.com. I dont know why you people writing this bs. I offered to sell it to the owner and his friends. There is NOTHING WRONG with buying GOOD DOMAINS. I am not pro or against Sylvia Browne. I tried to put up objective content but got many insults in the email. Please stop this harassment because I dont want to file any law suits. I hope we can call it as misunderstand and you guys put your money where your mouth is and BUY STOPSYLVIABROWNE.com
Kreiman picked up the domain at auction for $495 when it expired and the proper thing to do given Robert’s unfortunate circumstances would be to sell it back for a reasonable amount.
For those of you who have links to Robert’s website, the new domain is www.stopsylvia.com.
Well it is October the 14th and as of yet there is no sign of the UFO that psychic Blossum Goodchild predicted as visiting earth.Goodchild’s channelled a message that a UFO would appear in the sky and remain for three days has provided an interesting blend of psychic ability and UFO’s.Apparently the aliens have come to “give us hope” and currently there are many bankers and employees of financial institutions who are hoping that this will come true.Judging by today’s rebound on the stock markets perhaps that they have arrived, but not revealed themselves yet.
For reasons unknown this prediction has whipped up some fervour among UFO believers and psychics alike (and the tongue in cheek reports in the main stream media probably are not helping).Some people who on the face of it have reality impairments have incorporated additional conspiracies like this cracker on an associated blog that says:
Some people have been emailing me wondering when the light ship will show up. It will show up tomorrow, the 14th within the North American time frame. The goal of this sighting is to have the light ship present themselves to the United States as they are the central area of the Illuminati.
Of course…it all makes sense to me now!What I am looking forward to is Goodchild’s revised explanation that will come out over the next few days when the UFO fails to materialise.My prediction is that the time was not right and a new date will be announced.It is a common ploy with the various religious dooms dayers, but unfortunately the true believers will continue to believe the various predictions (Jehovah Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are a good examples, they have both previously predicted dates for the end times which have come and gone, and they have successfully rationalised the failures).
On a more serious note, is that it is quite fascinating how people find themselves in the position of having such beliefs.While mental illness can account for a small proportion there are many people who are of a sound mind and yet will believe the likes of Goodchilds channelling.They do not believe things on a whim either as they will base their decisions to believe in things on some type of evidence.However, it is the quality of the evidence that is important.
When making the decision about whether to believe any proposition, evidence always plays a role. For a ‘believer’ in a particular idea the form that the evidence takes is going to be very relevant.
If you are prepared to accept as evidence what you personally observe and experience (anecdotal evidence) then it does open up many doors for a range of things whether it be channelling, psychic abilities, psychic healing, remote viewing, homeopathy, or UFO’s. The amount of weight you place on anecdotal evidence appears to dictate how much something throws themselves into the realms of belief of a particular phenomenon.
However in determining something as important as say psychic belief, my position is that anecdotal evidence is insufficient, there needs to be a systematic approach to its examination to determine whether there is a basis to this particular claim. Furthermore, if there is a basis then further research needs to be examined to establish what the underlying processes are that cause the phenomena (as it is one thing to observe psychic ability, but it is another to explain how it happens)
To reach a scientific level of ‘proof’ (which in science you never actually prove anything, but I am using the term in an every day sense) for a phenomena, then for me personally, anecdotal evidence is not enough as there are to many alternative explanations and variables that may impact upon the senses to make it reliable. This is why for subjects where a scientific basis is lacking I am sceptical of its existence or claims. This does not mean that I can rule it out (although there are some concepts where it is reasonable to rule them out due to their flawed underpinnings or outlandish claims – chemtrail conspiracies spring to mind), but take the position that until the scientific evidence is available then I would not commit to a particular belief.
It is interesting that some people can also be sceptical of science itself and it can and has been accused of a range of things including elitism and dogmatic. However, these are actually criticisms of the scientific community, not the process of scientific investigation, which has proven to be robust and an incredibly effective tool in the advancement of our knowledge and technology.
Anyway, with that said, lets bring on the alien visitation!
An Australian poster going by the name of AndyD on the JREF forums has recently had a run in with Ezio De Angelis, a self described psychic medium who was a finalist in the recent television series The One.This show pitted various psychics against each other in a showdown to determine who was Australia’s top psychic.
AndyD edited and posted on Youtube a satirical video of De Angelis conducting a psychic reading from ‘The One’.The principal edits were of the sitter providing many more negative answers than what was shown and the rationale of the video was to highlight the number of misses that had made their way to the cutting room floor during the editing process for the episode.
In late September De Angelis contacted AndyD and told him:
“This video is part of a pending Defamation and compensation action. It has already been removed from Bad Psychics.Com as part of this legal process.
In order to ensure that you are not implicit in the litigation you are required to remove the video and commentary immediately.”
This threat of legal action upset AndyD sufficiently to not only remove the video from Youtube, but also remove half of his posts on his blog.He has since reinstated most of the posts, but the video has not been put back on Youtube.
Without the benefit of viewing the video, it is difficult to judge if it is actually defamatory (and anyway I am no lawyer), but this is a common tactic attempted by some of the more high profile psychics to have blogs, articles, and websites that are critical of them removed from the Internet.Uri Geller is notorious for his litigation and famously filed action against Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and James Randi which inadvertently resulted in James Randi and CSICOP parting ways.
Threats of defamation are not restricted to those who dabble in the supernatural world, but also in pseudoscientific realms such as the recent threat of legal action made by New Zealand Chiropractic Association against the New Zealand Medical Journal.
For those sceptics who have an Internet presence, they are open to the threat of litigation (whether it has a basis or not) and for most people the prospect of having the hassle and expense of a civil hearing is sufficient to give in to such threats.
In New Zealand the Defamation Act 1992 provides are two defenses that can be used, the first is that the defamatory statement is the truth, which on the face of it seems straight forward.However, the burden of proof lies on the person making the statement to show that it is true.The second defense is that it is an honestly held opinion.With this defense, the facts presented must be correct and it must be clear that it is the personal opinion of the person making the statement.Furthermore, the opinion must be genuinely held.
This should not be taken as legal advice and if you are the subject of legal action then make sure that you get advice from a suitably qualified solicitor.
The Sunday Star Times (A New Zealand paper) is running a survey in conjunction with Marc Wilson (A senior philosophy lecturer at Victoria University) over the next week or two testing New Zealand’s beliefs in superstitions and the like. An article in last weekend’s Sunday Star Times briefly covers the survey and includes a discussion by Vicki Hyde (chair of NZ Skeptics) about skepticism including her description of one NZ Skeptics conference:
“When the Sceptics Conference opened one year on a Friday 13th, we had a ladder parked over the entrance doorway and everyone came through under it. We also had a box of mirror glass to break, chain mail letters to ignore, salt to spill, umbrellas to open inside. It was the one conference where all the speakers ran to time.”
It is good to see NZ skeptics in the news making good points and also making the point that skepticism is not dry cynicism but actually is fun.
The survey itself is quite interesting and I look forward to the results which should be fascinating. I hope they good a good response to it so we can make some useful inferences. The link can be found in the article above or directly here.
Having just done the survey I can say that it deals with superstitions, pseudoscience, lotteries, religion, a strange question about attitudes to different social groups, conspiracy theories, urban myths, alternative medicine, and a few other issues in quite a bit of detail. I did find it quite hard to answer some of the questions due to the wording (which is typical of such surveys) but generally it wasn’t too bad for this sort of survey (I have seen way worse). The temptation of winning a new blackberry was nice too – I need a new phone so fingers crossed… here’s hoping!
An Australian poster going by the name of 
Recent Comments