Skepticism in a nutshell

On episode #208 of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, the SGU folks took questions from the audience at TAM7. The best question, I thought, came from my friend Bruce who asked how to explain a skeptics convention and skepticism so that a teenager might understand.

I’d go farther than the teenager. How do I explain it to my Mom or Dad or coworkers who can see my enthusiasm for the skeptical community? They have no idea if it’s a religion, a fun hobby, a political party, or just an odd obsession.

I was not satisfied with the SGU rogues’ answers but there were a lot of pertinent points brought up – promotion of science and science education, examination of the paranormal, logical and critical thinking. I don’t agree with Jay who said that a short answer isn’t the best. I think at least a brief introduction is a good idea. A little bit is better than a full-out presentation with examples that might freak them out.

It could be there is no suitable in-a-nutshell explanation but I’m going to try.

“What’s a “skeptic”?”, asks an acquaintance/family member during a casual conversation.

“Well,” I begin, “A skeptic and the skeptical community are people interested in science who consider claims made by others using very careful collection and evaluation of evidence. The evidence must be better than a blurry photo or an eyewitness story on TV where the event or description can’t be verified, examined or reproduced. So, many claims about special medicines, miraculous cures, UFOs, conspiracies, psychic ability, supernatural phenomena, etc. do not withstand a skeptical inquiry because the evidence is such poor quality.”

If you have the opportunity, you might add, “Most people can’t take the time to check the so-called facts they hear on TV or in print, even the internet, but the skeptical community examines these claims critically and points out the fiction. I’d like to think Bigfoot or ghosts are what people say they are but, after decades of looking, there is just no body of scientific evidence for these things. A skeptic can expose hoaxes, tricks, scams or the misuse of facts. They can spot something that sounds like science but is really just a put-on that sounds credible. So, the skeptical community serves a very useful role in society because they question what many people just assume to be true. Exposing claims that are likely not true allows us to stop wasting time, money or effort on them.”

Did I go over 30 seconds? Don’t get me talking about this stuff, I’ll prattle on…

Sounds like quackery

In my series Sham Inquiry, I spotlighted three examples of fields that sound a lot like science but have critical failures. Attempts to don the trappings of science are most irritating when they fool people into thinking it is real, cutting-edge science. I found more examples from the recent Newsweek article on Oprah’s promotion of quackery. Dr. David Cooper, a professor of endocrinology at Johns Hopkins medical school, a specialist in thyroid disease, sounded a bit perturbed at the antics of the Oprah-favorite Dr. Northrup:

“The problem is that this all has the aura of being scientific when a lot of it is wrong, or not proven
or just utter hogwash,” Cooper says. “No wonder it sounds very credible to the patients, and in my
opinion, that’s even worse. If it was all complete rubbish, people would be more likely to see it for
what it really is.”

Also mentioned is hormone therapy that confounds the term “natural” and the Law of Attraction utter bullshit labeled “very, very scientific” by those that hawk The Secret. If you have to point that out, it’s probably not.

Mix real scientific terms with utter gobbledygook and people eat it up. They can’t tell the difference. Much of this sounds very hokey to skeptics who are sensitized to pseudoscience red flags but not to the millions of sheeple who follow Oprah faithfully, without question. I suspect some of this lack of critical thinking can be reduced through the education process, however, people like to have charismatic leaders to follow and to think for them.

I applaud Newsweek for standing up to Oprah. It’s the number 1 emailed article in their “Life” section today. I encourage everyone whose Mom watches Oprah to send her this article.

Ghost Hunting – Sham Inquiry

Thousands of eyewitnesses report ghostly encounters from ancient history to modern times. Contact with the dead is very much part of our modern culture. With the expansion of television content and the internet, stories about hauntings have surged in popularity.

Ghost hunting is a popular hobby for thrill seekers. It’s fun to be scared. The official community of ghost hunters, including those of popular reality TV programs, are non-scientists. However, they invariably tout the scientific nature of their activities. The basis for their science is high-tech equipment and jargon. The term “ghost” has been replaced with “psychic energy” in reference to the explanation for data collected. All the science-like dressing is designed to portray seriousness about the reality of the subject. Colleges have sponsored seminars and non-credit classes about ghost hunting. The hobby appears to have taken on a decidedly pseudoprofessional aspect. As with cryptozoology, some young people consider this a potential career choice!

An investigation by a troop of ghost hunters is prompted by anecdotes of a haunting. So-called paranormal investigators will systematically approach an investigation with a fixed set of equipment and a plan. They claim to be objective and to attempt to rule out non-paranormal explanations. But, since one calls the activity “ghost hunting” it is fair to conclude that there is a preconceived notion about how they will interpret whatever they find.

Ghost hunters will use high-tech equipment including electromagnetic field meters, thermometers, tape recorders, Geiger counters, ion detectors, infrared cameras, and ultra-sensitive microphones. (These devices do a fair job of measuring and recording whatever they were designed to detect around the location. The investigators gather no background data to determine baseline readings at a site. The instruments are not calibrated and there is only a token attempt to eliminate obvious explanations (such as drafts or electrical current in wiring). The reliance on anomalies reveals that the users do not understand what they are measuring, how the equipment works, and the scientific principles that explain how it works [1]. The giant leap made by ghost hunters is that any anomalies detected by this equipment are paranormal. Clearly stated: there is no evidence whatsoever to conclude they are detecting ghosts. To be fair, some professionals have acknowledged this [2].

The popular ghost hunter group, TAPS, has a diverse article collection containing writings on religious mythology (demons and angels), folklore (different types of hauntings and spirits) and unsubstantiated claims (haunted objects and electronic voice phenomena). None of the work has references or has been published. Sprinkled in are misrepresentations of physical laws, dark matter, psychology, consciousness, solar events and lunar cycles relating to ghostly phenomena. There is no coherent theory that explains what is allegedly observed. Peer review consists of a public discussion board frequented by fans of their TV show.Using a scientific instrument, citing “Bose-Einstein Condensate” or Maxwell’s equations, and talking in acronyms and jargon does not indicate that you are practicing science.

Since ghosts are non-physical, they won’t often produce physical evidence. The strongest physical evidence for ghosts are photographs. The history of paranormal phenomena is riddled with frauds and hoaxes and, in the modern age of do-it-yourself photo manipulation, every photo is suspect and is very weak evidence. Like personal stories, photographs can be very persuasive. Lens flares, camera straps and dust reflections are interpreted by the public as evidence of captured spirit manifestations.

The ’science’ of hauntings is missing clear, agreed upon definitions, objectivity, controlled research and scholarly experiments [3]. After centuries of study into spirits and life after death, we have no better knowledge about it – an indicator of pseudoscience. The ghost hunters and psychical research community can be contrasted with that of Wiseman, et al. (2003) who does controlled experiments in supposedly haunted locations based on the psychology of humans. M. Persinger conducts laboratory experiments into how the human brain is influenced by applied magnetic fields. These types of research are showing satisfactory, yet still controversial, explanations for the experiences of hauntings.

Perhaps we have yet to discover the means to truly detect transient phenomena like ghosts. Or, perhaps we have been overlooking more down-to-earth causation.
————–

References

Radford, B. (2006). “The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting.” Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/061027_ghost_hunters.html.

TAPS: The Atlantic Paranormal Society. http://www.the-atlantic-paranormal-society.com/articles/articles.html#general.

Warren, J. (2003). How to Hunt Ghosts, Fireside.

Wiseman, R., C. Watt, P. Stevens, E. Greening, C. O’Keeffe (2003). “An investigation into alleged ‘hauntings’.” British Journal of Psychology 94: 195-211.

————-
[1] Radford, 2006
[2] TAPS
[3] Wiseman, et al.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

Pretend science

Playing Pretend Science

In order to be technical, like science, pseudoscientists engage in a method of data gathering that is not haphazard or lazy. Intricate collection and analysis is often a part of pseudoscientific activity. They may produce enormous bodies of work. Commitment to a cause can prompt “energetic intellectual effort” [1]. The motives and ’sciencey’ feel of the whole endeavor wins over those nonscientists who can’t recognize that it simply fails to meet scientific standards. Yet, for all the diligent work, the accumulated evidence can still amount to nothing of substance.
The public is happy to admire science as long as they don’t have to understand it deeply. Sham inquiry plays to the admiration of science by the public. A lack of familiarity with how science is supposed to work is a major reason why the public has trouble recognizing counterfeit science. Add an ‘-ology’ to the end of whatever you study and it acts like a toupe of credibility – to hide the lack of substance. The public is vulnerable to pseudoscience that resembles real inquiry and genuine knowledge.
The following are three examples of current pseudosciences. They all don the accoutrements of science without delivering the substance [2]. The field of cryptozoology is the likeliest of the three to hold the interest of real scientists these days because it is associated with the genuine fields of zoology, anthropology and wildlife biology and chock-full of amateur scientists. Ghost hunting is predominantly nonscientists who enjoy using technology and the new view that it gives them on the world. Creationism is a entirely different beast grown completely from religious ideology and dressed in a cheap and transparent scientific costume. This sham does not even fool courts of law but it continues to exert tremendous ideological force on the public.

Cryptozoology
Ghost hunting
Creationism
——————-
[1] Haack, S. (1995). “Concern for Truth and Why it Matters”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 58.
[2] Bunge, M. (1995).“In Praise of Tolerance To Charlatanism in Academia”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences, p. 104.

Back to Sham Inquiry contents page.

So much information

WordPress has a new feature that allows me to blog from email. Very cool. Why did it take so long?

The reason why this is Awesome is that I frequently get ideas or come across links at work. I can’t post to the blog at work because WordPress is blocked (along with thousands of other useful sites). When I get home, there are 101 things to do before I can access the computer, stop my thoughts zipping madly around my brain for a moment, focus, and remember what it was I wanted to say.

I admit that I have to hurry through lots of reading these days. There is so much of interest out there. But, blogs and links to online news and commentary are my main way of getting information about the world. I no longer watch TV. It takes too long. So, I RSS my news feeds and subscribe to blogs. And, by the end of the day, my brain is overloaded and I am frazzled. Important point: I do not have personal email in a reliable portable device. Therefore, I do not Twitter. I think my head would explode.

I experience anxiety because I want to keep up with all the interesting breaking news, science, controversies and new woo-ness that is released every day. It can’t be done. There are too many great skeptical blogs, science news sites and witty commentators. So, here I am adding to the feeds. Or, I’m just talking to myself… something we all have to stop and do some times.

Sour Grapes

“If you aren’t trying to get to the truth, you aren’t really inquiring”
-S. Haack [1]

A case of sour grapes

We live in a world of science. Because of its high regard as a source of truth about the world, the concept of ‘science’ is often abused by scoundrels [2] and its appearance is hijacked.  Presenting an alternate viewpoint  as a scientific theory is commonly used in order to elevate some unorthodox idea to a level to compete with real scientific ideas [3].  If your idea at least sounds scientific, you’ve got it made.  At least, in the public eye.

To make a case for a truth about the world without regards to evidence, logic or argument is called pseudoinquiry or sham reasoning/inquiry [4].  Sham inquiry gives the impression of scientific inquiry but lacks  substance and rigor. It’s hard to distinguish genuine science from false science (pseudoscience). Pseudoscientific ideas are elaborate, encompass lots of details, and use technical terminology.  A layman would be hard pressed to understand it, just like real science. (Pick up Nature and try to read one of the research reports.)

Many nonscientists want desperately to make a breakthrough, be endowed as an expert and be associated with the elite community of respected scientists. The scientific community does not usually respond warmly to a fringe theory. When scorned by the elite community, the theorist may come down with a bad case of “sour grapes” and seek other outlets to distribute their work because they are convinced of its great importance.

They believe they are advancing knowledge by the act of challenging orthodoxy.  One can evade the  demands and harsh critiques that authentic scientists have to face by appealing to a small circle of supporters .  Instead of true scientific accolades, the “maverick” can gain rewards thorough media attention and respect from a small group of ardent admirers.

Many characteristics consistently appear in false science and can be used as a general guide for spotting sham inquiry:

• Unorthodox and proud of it
• Fancy jargon and complexity
• Irrefutable
• Immutable and Closed to Criticism
• Low quality of evidence
• Using subterfuge to build a case

I’ll examine what it means to play pretend science. And, show you three examples of how they do it: Cryptozoology, Ghost Hunting, Creationism

I found unorthodox professionals elbowing in on good science.

And, I found the maverick scientist’s iconic example of how science is wrong.

—————-

[1] Haack, S. (1995). “Concern for Truth and Why it Matters”. The Flight from Science and Reason (1996). P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, M.W. Lewis, New York Academy of Sciences. p. 58.

[2] Levitt, N. (1999). Prometheus Bedeviled, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 1

[3] Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring Science, Rutgers Univ Press. p. 93

[4] Haack, p. 58.

VISIT MY SHAM INQUIRY PAGE

Sham Inquiry

As part of a research project, I looked at the phenomenon of sham inquiry. It’s when pseudoscience or a marketing scheme dresses up to look like science in order to add credibility. The public can be easily fooled – they think if you look like this:

…you must be a scientist.

Well, that’s obviously not true. No one I know looks like that. In public.

In this paper, I looked at three examples of my favorite (to poke) pseudosciences and I was astonished to find one example they ALL used to show how science doesn’t work. (They failed to show this, actually. It’s a bogus argument.)

I hope you enjoy this series beginning with “Sour Grapes”. I’d like to have your feedback.

Reasons to love evolution

Evolution explains the way things are. There is no God at work there, things happen according to natural rules (policy and general guidance). It’s a beautiful thing. Nature is the designer. Don’t be afraid to embrace Natural Design. Here’s why it’s OK to love evolution.

1. Scientists are cool, crazy evangelicals are not.
2. You will piss off crazy evangelicals (cool).
3. You have a better chance of getting a good paying job (because you will automatically be smarter than the average person).
4. A stylized fish with legs and a wrench is cute on your car.
5. You will understand your doctor when he gives you health information.
6. Change through time explains a lot about life.
7. The zoo and natural history museums become tremendously more interesting.
8. You won’t drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why God created parasites.
9. You will have a small appreciation for even the worst things in life – like kudzu, MRSA and influenza pandemics.
10. You can appreciate what is really important in selecting a “mate”.
11. It’s not hip to be dumb and ignorant, for example – see George W. Bush.
12. You view life as one big, interconnected web, through time, in which we are all related.
13. Accepting things the way they are is a lot less stressful than living a lie.

Airborne shot out of the sky

Sorry I haven’t been keeping up this blog for those of you who might be subscribed. Every so often I feel the need to speak out in the hopes that someone might hear me.

This made me say “Yea!”. From the first I heard of Airborne, and other things like Cold-eeze, Zicam and the like, the warning bells rang loudly. If it sounds too good to be true…

I hate herbal remedies. Not because they don’t work but because too many people think that “herbal” is better. Herbal is herbal, that’s it; usefullness or betterness is not implied. People will think “natural” is better. Well, if herbal and natural remedies were so great for everything, why did we have to develop western medicinal drugs? Put simply, herbal remedies may not hurt you. (And that’s a big “may”, because they just might.) But, you waste lots of money for nothing. Sure, I enjoy my herbal tea and have been occasionally fond of pick-me-up drinks, but I don’t expect miracles from them. That is, I don’t expect them to cure the common cold or really give me wings.

Here’s a revelation for those of you who say “It works for me! I haven’t been sick at all!”: I have daily contact with children in day care and elementary school and work in a large office building. I have not had one major illness this year. I had one minor bout of sniffles lasting about 5 days but it was not too disruptive. My system fought off the onset of some achyness within a day several times since last fall without the aid of any magic concoction. Therefore, I can honestly say I haven’t been sick much this past season at all. I attribute this to three things – 1.) I get regular sleep. When I feel poor, I try for even more. 2.) I don’t eat much junky food. One treat a day and fast food makes me feel rather yucky. 3.) I use saline nose spray to keep me from getting recurrent sinus infections.

I will bet you will find plenty of doctors who say my solutions are tremendously safe and very effective. You won’t find that for poor Airborne. I snigger at those who swear by this stuff. Then, I wish that there was a way to really help you understand that anecdotes are not science. It’s kind of depressing how in these modern times, misinformation and misunderstanding still is so prevalent.

Age of Endarkenment

Please read this Guardian (UK) editorial essay by David Colquhoun. It is written in reference to goings-on in the UK but is even more applicable to what is happening in the U.S., which is worse.

I see daily evidence for our society wandering off into the land of ‘woo’ and it scares me. No, terrifies me. Scientists are becoming the disrespected. The average citizens is completely unaware of the role of science in daily life. I can’t even trust a family physician or pharmacist to know what is truth in medicine and what is unsupported bunk. I certainly can’t trust the current American government to know a scientific fact (or any other kind of fact) if it smacked them clear in the face. They chose to ignore them. That is at the peril of the entire foundation of our society.