Category: Skepticism

  • Kids' Book: Religion is Evilism

    Check it out–for a mere 12 Euro, you can buy, Wo bitte geht’s zu Gott?, fragte das kleine Ferkel, a book that is reportedly causing a stir for its depiction of the world’s major religions. This children’s book is pitched to atheists who wish to indoctrinate/inoculate their children against religion:

    The book tells the story of a piglet and a hedgehog, who discover a poster attached to their house that says: “If you do not know God, you are missing something!”

    This frightens them because they had never suspected at all that anything was missing in their lives. Thus they set out to look for “God.” Along the way they encounter a rabbi, a bishop and a mufti who are portrayed as insane, violent and continually at each other’s throats.

    The rabbi is drawn in the same way as the caricatures from the propaganda of 1930’s Germany; corkscrew curls, fanatical lights in his eyes, a set of predator’s flashing teeth and hands like claws. He reacts to the animals by flying into a rage, yelling at them that God had set out to destroy all life on Earth at the time of Noah and chases them away.

    The mufti fares little better. While he greets both animals at first as a quiet man and invites them into his mosque, he soon changes into a ranting fanatic. He assembles a baying Islamic mob and holds the animals up in a clenched fist while condemning them to everlasting damnation through bared teeth and an unruly-looking beard.

    The insinuation here is that all visitors to mosques are extremists and every imam who appears reasonable is, in truth, nevertheless, a preacher of hate.

    One of the authors says he’s merely providing some alternative to the many religious books available for children:

    “Children also have a right to enlightenment,” he wrote on a Web site set up dedicated to the book. “They should not be left defenseless to the scientifically untenable and ethically problematic stories of religion.”

    Tip: Thank you, Fark!

  • The End of the James Randi Challenge

    After ten years the James Randi Educational Foundation is discontinuing its 1 million dollar paranormal challenge.

    The James Randi Educational Foundation Million-Dollar Challenge will be discontinued 24 months from this coming March 6th, and those prize funds will then be available to generally add to our flexibility. This move will free us to do many more projects, which will be announced at that time.

    I’m disappointed, because that means in two years we will lose one of the best anti-woo tools in the arsenal. That is, the offer of 1 million dollars to any woomeister who can prove their paranormal abilities are real in a controlled scientific test in order to shut them up. Otherwise it wasn’t that helpful, as the real prominent fakers knew better than to actually put their livelihood on the line as they describe:

    Our expectations at first were that we’d attract major personalities by this means, but they’ve avoided having to take the test by simply not applying; those who have actually applied are generally honestly self-deluded persons who have difficulty stating what they can do, which can be understood if they really don’t know what they’re experiencing; we at JREF have gone through involved procedures to help them recognize their problems. Usually, they have indicated that they don’t know what real scientific rules are, when it comes down to their actually being properly tested.

    But for two more years at least we’ve still got this ace up our sleeve. There is still time to apply all you woos out there!

    This means that all those wishing to be claimants are required to get their applications in before the deadline, properly filled out and notarized as described in the published rules.

    Ten years is long enough to wait. The hundreds of poorly-constructed applications, and the endless hours of phone, e-mail, and in-person discussions we’ve had to suffer through, will be things of the past, for us at the JREF.

    Those who believe they have mystic powers now have two full years to apply… Let’s see what happens.

  • Skeptics' Circle Number 77 – White Coat Underground

    White Coat Underground has the overmedicalized edition. I’m pleased to see Happy Jihad House of Pancakes arguing for more skepticism in the humanities as part of the circle. And a great post on epidemiology and autism from Andrea.

    Orac had some important things to say about consensus, and just to clarify my position on how a skeptic should regard consensus it’s simple. It is a sign of crankery to attack consensus as a concept, for example see this nonsense from creationist John West whining about consensus on evolution. However, a big part of being a scientist is challenging various consensus views (usually consensus views of lower strength than what the cranks are after – another sign). This is why so many crank arguments about consensus are so laughable to people who have actually worked in science. You don’t get published for writing up studies repeating the same results endlessly, science rewards novelty and new findings. If you have high-quality data that contradicts the consensus, you should attack it and your paper will likely be widely read. While it’s true that in many fields an old guard will defend their view to the death, the history of science is that of the data ultimately saving the day. It’s perfectly OK to attack a specific scientific consensus but you do it by publishing papers, and arguing with legitimate data and high-quality argument. A crank is one who attacks the mere idea of consensus, who acts through political channels to try and change scientific knowledge, who tries to subvert consensus with no data except maybe some cherry-picked nonsense,who uses a bunch of conspiracy theories to explain why no one believes them, and all the while cries persecution if they’re not immediately believed or if their BS isn’t a mandatory part of public school curricula.

    Just to clarify.

    Finally, of note today, Steven Novella has started a new blog Science Based Medicine that will likely be worthy of note.

  • Skeptics' Circle Number 76

    Good for Martin Hosting the Skeptics’ Circle and keeping out the cranks.

    I’m fond of Whiskey Before Breakfasts’ entry on just whether the 20th century truly was the bloodiest, and Knudsens News straight-faced description of the failure of doctors to meet chiropractic standard of care.

    Enjoy!

  • Cectic, keeping the fight against dogmatic parentism alive

    I’m in DC this week working for Dr. Mom and getting my physical exam skills back up to snuff, so I’ll be a little quiet. In the meantime, Cectic is keeping the dream alive:

    I love these guys.

  • What was in Criss Angel's envelope?

    I watched the season finale of phenomenon – the show in which mentalists compete to see who is the next “phenomenon” – and Criss Angel did skeptics everywhere proud with the contents of the envelope.

    (more…)

  • 74th Skeptics' Circle – Med Journal Watch

    Med Journal Watch has it up.

    I must admit some sadness that yet again one of my skeptic colleagues has fallen for Sandy Szwarc’s nonsense though. People, figure this out, she’s not a real skeptic. They don’t make blanket statements like this:

    Hearing that a study found some food, exposure or physical characteristic is associated with a 5% to 200% higher risk for some health problem seem like a frightening lot. It’s easy to scare people half to death by citing relative risks that sound big but aren’t actually viable. Such modest risks (RR=1.05 – 3.0) don’t go beyond a null finding by more than chance (the toss of a dice or random coincidence) or a mathematical or modeling error, even if they’re reported as “statistically significant” in an underpowered study. Larger increases in risk are less likely to have happened by chance. False positives are also often due to various biases and confounding factors. Regular JFS readers understand that relative risks below 3 aren’t considered tenable and this knowledge is one of our best defenses from letting the news of the day get our goat. But, even these may be conservative.

    This is completely absurd, and it’s interesting how the cranks are raising the bar. They used to deny anything of a RR less than two so they could ignore risks of things like second hand smoke. Now scientists apparently have to show RR’s of 3 or more by Sandy’s fiat.

    I mean, for the love of Jebus, she cites Steven Milloy and his anti-science site Junkscience in the article!

    Note to future skeptic’s circle hosts – read the damn entries!

  • Fight on Phenomenon!

    Last week you may remember I watched phenomenon with eye out for Uri Geller’s nonsense, and I was pleasantly surprised to find Criss Angel playing the skeptic pretty well.

    Well this week’s was awesome! Jim Callahan does a pretty cheesy psychic bit, with some really terrible acting, and it’s so bad that Angel calls him out. Angel starts demanding he (or Geller) show real psychic ability and if he did he’d give him a million dollars. It ends up with them being physically separated – check it out!

    Some spoilers below the fold.

    (more…)

  • How to triage nonsense

    Both Orac and MarkCC have been having a blast tearing to shreds virtually every aspect of the latest nonsensical piece by Dennis Byrne based on this idiotic study at JPANDS.

    One thing struck me in the two analyses, was MarkCC’s emphasis on the idea of triage in assessing the scientific literature. This is fundamentally a good concept, but I think he was too kind to JPANDS in saying that they merely lacked credibility as a journal thus raising red flags. If we’re going to look at this from the perspective of triage, an article from JPANDS is like encountering a dead body on a gurney accidentally misplaced from the morgue in your ER . This is beyond dead-on-arrival. This is dead a few days ago, frozen, with a toe-tag.

    This of course doesn’t stop the egregious liars from the fake family values groups from saying this is new proof of the relationship they’ve failed to prove for the last decade. They would love to have proof of the conspiracy of evil doctors trying to poison women with abortions so we can line our pockets with sweet sweet breast cancer dollars. Recent articles in real journals have shown in cohorts of over a hundred thousand women there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.

    Now, liars who have no interest in truth or science will of course latch on to anything that conforms to their ideology, even if it is a pathetic piece of correlative nonsense from artificially selected data, based on false assumptions and an obviously false model of risk. That’s because they’re worthless liars. However, those of us who care about truth, no matter feelings on abortion, must say that the evidence unequivocally shows that there is no link between abortion at any age and breast cancer.

    Anyone who says the opposite is a liar or a fool. It’s that simple.