Denialism Blog

Author: MarkH

  • This guy is a brain surgeon?

    The latest gem from Egnor:

    Clearly the brain, as a material substance, causes movement of the body, which is also a material substance. The links are nerves and muscles. But there is no material link between our ideas and our brains, because ideas aren’t material.

    I’m not a neuroscientist, but that’s strikes me as the dumbest thing I’ve heard yet. No material link between our ideas and our brains? So I guess when we take a hallucinogen like LSD it works by magic? How could it be that thinking
    is separate from “material” as he puts it, when we can ingest material substances that alter our thinking? How is it that damage to specific areas of the brain can inhibit different kinds of thought? Immaterial things like remorse, impulsivity, memory, language can all be affected by “material” brain-damage and “material” drugs. How does the non-materialist explain this? Is it magic?

    This goes beyond Egnor’s usual ignorance of science, this is more like Deepak Chopra kind of woo – this idea that our brains are in contact with the divine and that’s where our thoughts and ideas come from. But it’s just magical thinking, there is no evidence of some divine hand in our thoughts, quite the opposite. The evidence is that ideas do have an organic origin, or how else does one explain how damage to the system or specific drugs that interact with it, affects our thinking in predictable and repeatable ways?

    And let’s think about what this “non-materialist” view does for the study of neuroscience. Oh wait, nothing. Because if the brain is an incomprehensible magic black box, why study neuroscience? Why try to decode, dissect and discover how neural processes and diseases work if you believe it’s just magic?

    ** It’s also ironic that this paper – Probabilistic reasoning by neurons – just popped up on Nature AOP and I couldn’t help thinking that maybe Egnor didn’t do a thorough literature review before posting this nonsense.
    i-489dd819efedba2ae35c8ed120ac2485-3.gifi-62a2141bf133c772a315980c4f858593-5.gifi-83ab5b4a35951df7262eefe13cb933f2-crank.gif

  • Folie a news

    I’ve decided to describe a largely unacknowledged process of disease pathogenesis that I will call folie a news. To explain though, I’ll have to first discuss a disease called delusional parasitosis.

    Delusional parasitosis (DP – sometimes called Ekbom’s disease) is a lot like what it sounds like. Normal or abnormal sensations of itching are interpreted by the patient as being bug bites, or bugs traveling under the skin despite the absence of histological evidence of a parasitic infection. This is what is known as a “fixed delusion” and it becomes an obsession for the patient. The disease has a few known organic causes such as amphetamine or cocaine-use and many common co-morbities including diabetes, schizophrenia, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, lyme disease and depression.(1) Patients usually present to a dermatologists office complaining of sensations of itching and biting from insects, and frequently carry in samples of skin or lesions they’ve scratched off – this is referred to as “matchbook sign” in that the patients would often present with their skin scrapings in a small box like a matchbook. These days it’s probably more likely to be “zip lock sign”.

    12% of DP patients present with what is known as folie a deux(literally madness of two) in which the patient is not the primary sufferer of the delusion, but has adopted the delusion of another patient – usually a spouse or other family member.(2) It’s also important to remember that these people may be perfectly rational in every other way, but have just this single fixated delusion. Also, the feelings they’re having are real – one must not tell them it’s just “in their head” – it’s just what they’re ascribing them to is off . Further treatment with atypical anti-psychotics – which is effective a majority of the time – should be broached carefully as people feel stigmatized by diagnoses of mental illness.

    Now keep these things in mind while watching the following video that grrlscientist blogged this weekend about people who think bugs are crawling out of their skin.

    (video and more below the fold)
    (more…)

  • Lambert catches Cockburn in a big fat cherry-pick

    I should have known better than to trust a single quote cited by a denialist or crank. In our Case Study of Alexander Cockburn we pointed out his selective use of data but we missed a big fat cherry-pick.

    It’s based on this quote from Cockburns article:

    As Richard Kerr, Science magazine’s man on global warming remarked, “Climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s become almost respectable.”

    Tim Lambert catches Cockburn in this dishonesty and it’s a pretty bad behavior. It reminds me of the HOWTO again, in that people that become cranks really see only what they want to see in a source of information. It’s clear to any honest, reasonable person reading Kerr’s article that the conclusion was the opposite of what Cockburn suggested.

    This is why it’s denialism, and not “dissent” or “skepticism”. They can’t seem to do it without dishonesty.

  • Formation of a crank: A case study

    Readers of the Nation are probably by now familiar with the lunatic ravings of Alexander Cockburn on global warming.

    What is bizarre, is that, before he traveled down this road, he seemed able to identify other crank ideas – like 9/11 conspiracy theories, and criticized them. Further, it’s unusual to see a left-winger become a crank on global warming. The history of this mess is interesting. It started with this first post from Cockburn, in which he declares global warming a scam.

    What evolves is a fascinating picture into the formation of a crank, and the change in global warming denialism from attracting only right-wing cranks, to also attracting left-wing cranks – both denigrating science to serve a political goal.

    Below the fold I’ll summarize Cockburn’s arguments and how they use the denialist tactics, George Monbiot’s responses (including his amazing crank-fu!) and discuss why in the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right.
    (more…)

  • What Sam Brownback thinks about evolution

    In today’s NYT

    It’s softer than the outright denial of evolution that was assumed when he raised his hand at the debate, and certainly doesn’t sound like young-earth creationism. It seems to be intelligent design creationism without explicitly mentioning intelligent design – although some keywords are present. He, of course, uses many of the classic denialist arguments.

    For instance:
    (more…)

  • Badscience takes on the Independent

    Apparently, I’m not the only one who thinks the Independent is a joke when it comes to science reporting. The latest idiocy is the idea of “electrosmog”, which I think results from having watched The Ring too many times (just that first scene with the two girls talking about radio signals). It results in a condition known as “electrosensitivity”, which I think is a synonym for “nuts” or “wants attention” or “you have a dumb doctor”.

    If you want your eyes to fall out, you can read the Independent article yourself.

    The problem, and the real sad part of this is that we are watching the genesis of a new fake disease. All you need to do to create a fake disease is come up with a semi-plausible environmental toxin or infectious disease, describe a bunch of symptoms that hypochondriacs have all the time (as well as several other varieties of crazy that shall remain nameless), and publish it in a newspaper. Within days, a new disease will be created with all sorts of people with non-specific complaints showing up in doctor’s offices complaining of diffuse pain, tiredness, itchiness, insomnia…

    Real doctors usually then sadly apply one or more “dustbin diagnoses” just to get rid of these patients, a sad practice that just results in more confusion and crazy for the patient. They then form internet forums, start writing letters, and before you know it Congress will be talking about investigating the scientific conspiracy to ignore the fake disease. I think I sense a “How to create a fake disease HOWTO” coming on.

    I think I need to go lay down. My wifi is making me tired.

  • Crank HOWTO

    Who wants to know how to be an effective crank?

    Well, I’ve outlined what I think are the critical components of successful crankiness. Ideally, this will serve as a guide to those of you who want to come up with a stupid idea, and then defend it against all evidence to the contrary.

    Here’s how you do it:
    (more…)

  • A question for Luskin III

    Gosh, they just can’t accept that no reputable science department wants an IDer around. They continue to push this academic freedom issue, when it’s perfectly acceptable to consider an applicant’s ideas when they are pursued intramurally, and can’t quite decide whether they want to make it a religious discrimination issue – risking admitting that ID is a theologic concept or actually looking to see if other Christians have had a problem at ISU.

    So I think it’s time again to repeat my question for Luskin.

    Mr. Luskin, is it the considered opinion of the DI, UD etc., that it is never acceptable to discriminate against a professor in a tenure decision based on their ideas?

    Sorry to harp on it guys, but an answer would be of great interest.

  • Colony Collapse Disorder Update

    From Salon. Conspiracy Factory has a good overview.

    Sounds like it wasn’t anything sinister other than weird winter weather.

  • 9/11 with office supplies

    You remember when that creationist thought a can of peanut butter disproved evolution?

    If you thought that was funny, you got to start watching some troofer videos. Screw Loose Change found this wonderful entry:

    I realize this is low hanging fruit. But it was too funny to ignore.
    i-3a38ecb7855955738c9e961220d56e25-1.gif