Skeptic’s Circle #65 is up at Neurologica.
I think I have to do it next time, is that right Orac?
Author: MarkH
-
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?
New Scientist has an interesting article by Patrick Leman on the psychology of believing in conspiracy theories.
Belief in conspiracy theories certainly seems to be on the rise, and what little research has been done investigating this question confirms this is so for perhaps the most famous example of all – the claim that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination of JFK in 1963. A survey in 1968 found that about two-thirds of Americans believed the conspiracy theory, while by 1990 that proportion had risen to nine-tenths.
One factor fuelling the general growth of conspiracy beliefs is likely to be that the internet allows new theories to be quickly created, and endlessly debated by a wider audience than ever. A conspiracy-based website built around the death of Princess Diana, for example, sprang up within hours of the car crash that killed her in 1997.
Well that sounds about right but then he makes a twisted turn in logic.
(more…) -
How to live longer – eat less protein?
This article in PLoS caught my eye today. It’s entitled, “Calories Do Not Explain Extension of Life Span by Dietary Restriction in Drosophila”, and is an extension of the body of science showing that caloric restriction in a variety of animals, from fruit flies to non-human primates, may dramatically extend life-span.
Currently the mechanism is not well understood, but this surprising new result suggests that rather than absolute calorie restriction, decreased protein intake may be more critical for this beneficial effect.
(more…) -
Shoot first, ask questions later
Is it just me or is Tom Coburn recommending a policy of shoot first ask questions later for our borders?
The patrol’s deadly force rules were questioned at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing concerning the conviction of two agents who shot a fleeing, unarmed drug trafficker and covered it up.
“Why is it wrong to shoot the [trafficker] after he’s been told to stop?” asked Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.
A new low for Coburn.
-
Two articles on Wakefield and Anti-vax denialism
Two Guardian articles appear today on Andrew Wakefield and his associates. The first is a discussion of his unethical and invasive methods used in his now-debunked study that purported to show a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.
(more…) -
Casey Luskin asks "Did Darwinism Hinder Research Into Understanding Cancer and Diabetes ?"
No.
It’s the same tired junk DNA argument from the ID creationists. But I find this one particularly funny – you’ll see why. Luskin says:
It’s beyond dispute that the false “junk”-DNA mindset was born, bred, and sustained long beyond its reasonable lifetime by the neo-Darwinian paradigm. As one example in Scientific American explained back in 2003, “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes … ‘were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.’” But once it was discovered that introns play vital cellular roles regulating gene production within the cell, John S. Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, was quoted saying the failure to recognize function for introns might have been “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
Wow, now that John S. Mattick has said it, it must be true. I’m sure Mattick’s a good guy, but man is he wrong about this one. It’s either that or our “biggest mistake” was really no big deal, because as I pointed out before the use of the junk terminology didn’t stop people from looking for function in non-coding DNA. Further, the assertion that ID figured out something clever is absurd, it’s just prediction of the past from the future and no great feat.
But that doesn’t stop Luskin from putting his foot in his mouth, he’s been a one-trick pony lately with this junk DNA nonsense, but, being a crank, he still can’t figure out why this issue is a loser for ID. Luskin gives his evidence that there was some great harm from the junk DNA theory.
-
Orac finds some super-cranks
I thought the denial of the link between smoking and cancer had gone out of style. The link between smoking and cancer is so thoroughly established that I thought no one could continue to defend cigarettes with a straight face.
Well, all Orac has to do is write a piece about the evidence for a health risk from second-hand smoke and soon enough the denialists come crawling out of the woodwork. The reason is pretty simple, smoking bans are unpopular with a certain group of people, and what do you do when science suggests something that people don’t want to believe? Well, you whip out the tactics of course.
Orac then follows the trail of BS back to one of the more incredible crank sites I’ve ever seen. It’s called forces.org, and it meets every single possible criteria of both crankery and denialism. It’s pretty incredible. They have conspiracy theories about drug companies being behind smoking bans to promote their nicotine replacements and anti-addiction drugs. They have quote-mines galore (every scientific paper they cite is misquoted, it’s incredible). They have these unbelievable crank fake experts. They clearly aren’t convinced by any amount of scientific evidence or expertise. And their logical fallacies are great! Not only do they conflate all sorts of different cancers, it seems that if something besides smoking can cause any type of cancer, then it must cause all cancers – including those cigarettes have been falsely implicated in. All of this is permeated by one of the more hilarious persecution complexes about their rights being violated because they can’t persist in a behavior that is a nuisance and health-hazard to other people.
The point of the site seems mostly to be opposition of the extension of smoking bans, and their reasoning is somewhat intriguing, at the same time it’s hilariously self-defeating. According to the mission statement of their West Virginia division, they have no chance to oppose smoking bans because there is no legitimate right to be a nuisance and hurt others’ health in public. Therefore they have to make sure to deny the science until they die of old age (or cancer). It’s almost like a public admission of using denialist tactics.
-
Check out my sciblings
Two posts on the scienceblogs today that shouldn’t be missed.
Orac on second-hand smoke and those who deny it’s health effects.
And Kevin Beck on Penis Pills.
It’s a great example of the failure to teach critical thinking skills that people can sell tiny doses of ginseng to insecure males and actually make a profit.
-
Is Michael Moore headed for 9/11 Troof?
The troofers seem to think so and based on the interview they have a video of after a screening they may be right.
-
Saletan on the Ethics of Stem Cells
William Saletan takes the position that progressives have no real bioethical position on stem cells in his most recent column in Slate. I’m a bit disappointed with Saletan over this one, because in his never ending quest to be thoughtful about everything, he’s usually much more fair to people – even those he disagrees with. But listen to his characterization of “progressive bioethics”.
I have problems with liberals. A lot of them talk about religion as though it’s a communicable disease. Some are amazingly obtuse to other people’s qualms. They show no more interest in an embryo than in a skin cell. It’s like I’m picking up a radio signal and they’re not. I’d think I was crazy, except that a few billion other people seem to be picking up the same signal. At most liberal bioethics conferences, the main question in dispute, in one form or another, is whether to be more afraid of capitalism or religion.
…
Lately, “progressives” have taken to issuing talking points. Every time a peer-reviewed science journal reports some new way of deriving embryonic stem cells without having to kill embryos, I can count on receiving a “progressive bioethics” e-mail that warns me not to be distracted by such fantasies. Bioethics has become politics by another name.
…
To fend off the bullies, the nerds have seized on stem cells. Some of them think embryonic stem-cell cures are just around the corner. Others know better but believe in the research anyway. What unites them is awareness that stem cells score very well in polls, much better than anything else on their agenda. Of 32 commentaries posted on the Web page of the “Progressive Bioethics Initiative,” 26 focus on stem cells. Some don’t even address ethics; they just lay out the polls. Stem cells are a chance for liberal bioethicists to beat the living daylights out of their opponents.
…
So I went to talk to them last night. I bitched about the atheism, the talking points, and the word progressive. I made a pitch for my version of liberalism. The freedom to strip-mine embryos, have a baby at 60, or kill yourself can’t be the end of the story. Not everything that’s legal is moral. The most interesting moral questions aren’t the ones you can settle with simple rules. They’re the subtle ones you find in literature and real life.
Conservative bioethicists think that when we recoil at something in this gray area, our repugnance signals a moral problem. Liberal bioethicists dismiss this argument as “fuzzy intuitionism” based on an illogical “yuck factor.” The liberals are making a big mistake. Fuzz and yuck are very real. They’re a lot more real to most people than bioethics is. You can’t just ignore them or wish them away. You have to help people sort them out and honor their concerns in a way that doesn’t require prohibition. An embryo may be less than a person, but it’s more than a tissue source. The government can’t stop you from having a baby at 60, but don’t be so reckless.
Is this a fair characterization of the ethics of using stem cells for research and maybe one day, tissue-engineering and cures? It may be what he took from the meeting, but I hope that isn’t the extent of progressive or liberal bioethics on stem cells, a desire to use a hot-button issue to beat conservatives at the polls. As someone who thinks this research important, I’ll try and do Saletan a favor and create a positive argument for embryonic stem cell research.
(more…)