After reading that Facebook causes cancer in the pages of that esteemed journal of fear, the Daily Mail, I decided to have a look through their archives for some other health advice. As Ben Goldacre has frequently observed, the Mail has taken upon themselves a task befitting some mythical inmate of Hades: to divide all inanimate objects into the categories of either causing or curing cancer.
By entering cancer into their website search box, I realised just how true that was. Below are a few things from the first few pages of results (bear in mind there were 200 pages of results just in the health section, i.e not including news of Jade Goody etc).
The following supposedly cause, or adversely affect, cancer:
Tibolone (menopause drug)
HRT
Green Tea
Smoking Cannabis
Soup
Mouthwash
The Contraceptive Pill
Wine
Caffeine
Beer and Wine
Talcum Powder
Stress
Being tall
Vitamin E
Wine again
Being Black
Wine again
Bacon, Ham, Sausages, Salt & Alcohol
Binge Drinking
The following are claimed to prevent, treat or cure cancer:
Walking
Sex
Measles
Tea
Fasting
Eating slowly
HRT
Asperin
Exercise (but only with at least 7 hours sleep)
Shark Blood
Red Wine
Circumcision
Walking again
Migraines
Salsa Dancing
Allergies
Red Wine
Red Wine again
Red Wine again
Herbal Tea
Beer
Chocolate
The really worrying thing is how many items are repeated in both lists. I don't know how Daily Mail readers ever bring themselves to leave their houses; it must be a scary world for them. Although, as we've read in the Facebook article, staying inside causes cancer. Especially if you have to eat anything except chocolate. So maybe outside is the safest place to be. Unless you're tall or black, of course, in which case there probably isn't any hope anyway.
Silly as all this is, there are serious consequences of this kind of over-extrapolated, unscientific sensationalism. First, people who buy into these stories will end up living their lives confused and scared, consciously avoiding many foods and activities that are perfectly harmless because they've read an ungrounded assertion in a newspaper that it will kill them.
Far more importantly than that, though, stories like this erode and undermine the public understanding of science. A constant stream of contradictory stories about whether wine is really good for you or not leads people to believe that scientists don't know what they're doing. The whole process of science is made to look like arbitrary guess work. It becomes obvious to wonder, if scientists can't make up their minds about wine, coundn't they be equally confused about vaccines or global warming? Once the perception of scientists and their work is thus reduced in the public mind, anybody's opinion, no matter how ill-founded, can be seen as just as valid as a scientific theory. Why shouldn't Jeni Barnett dislike MMR without knowing what's in it? Scientists probably don't know much more, right?
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
Expelled: And Rightly So
Academic Freedom is a new favourite in creationist camps. The term certainly sounds like an admirable concept, but in truth this movement is a subtle attempt to lower academic standards in order to enable creationism to sneak into science classes. It is nothing but a PR move, a cunning rebranding of a real debate.
Under the banner of academic freedom, institutions are criticised for not allowing open debate between evolution and intelligent design. It is claimed that there are substantial flaws in the theory of evolution that intelligent design could be able to answer. However, everyone's favourite shadowy cabal, the scientists, are routinely destroying the careers of anyone who asks the justified question of whether the world has a designer, so that their ficticious fancy, evilution, can be propogated for some self-serving reason that nobody has deigned to tell us yet.
This was the premise of Ben Stein's artless propaganda-fest, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This documentary (is it too cheap to call it a cock-umentary? Probably) tenaciously painted a picture of hard working academic after hard working academic being fired, ostracised and ridiculed for bringing up the possibility of design in front of their brainwashed darwinist peers. The film claims there is a debate to be had and the evolutionists aren't engaging with it, they're just expelling those who disagree with them.
Now, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that many of the 'expulsions' in the film were horribly exaggerated or simply made up. However, if any expulsions of this type have occured, I would argue they were deserved. Contrary to what these film makers, and the ID movement, would have us believe, the debate is not being stifled. The debate has already happened and been won. Intelligent design is not a valid theory.
The view that the world was created by a god is not a plucky, new, revolutionary idea, it has been the default position since as far back as history can tell us. It is only in the last couple of centuries that science has been able to show the errors of that position and present alternatives. Creationism has been evaluated and has been rightly discarded. It bears none of the necessary marks of a science: it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not falsifiable and it cannot make predictions. It is simply not helpful. Creationism is incompatible with science and therefore anyone who proposes an intelligent design explanation clearly does not understand the scientific position and should not be a scientist.
Let's say a hypothetical man were fired from a metaphorical cheese factory for proposing that they should sell cheese made from shit. He could complain that he had been unfairly dismissed without his ideas having been given a fair hearing. However, the factory owners know enough about cheese and shit not to need this worker to squat down in the board room and give them a specimin to try. From their experience in the dairy industry, they know that however long you churn shit, it will never turn into cheese. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter because nobody would want to eat it. Indeed, they would be justifiably worried about having someone working for them that evidently had such little understanding of the way cheese, and indeed shit, works.
In a round-about analogy sort of way, the ID-proposing biologist is very much like our shitty cheese eating employee. Though he may complain at the unfairness of the scientific world's apparent refusal to evaluate his ideas, the truth is that the debate has already moved on and any scientist who can't recognise that deserves to be expelled.
Under the banner of academic freedom, institutions are criticised for not allowing open debate between evolution and intelligent design. It is claimed that there are substantial flaws in the theory of evolution that intelligent design could be able to answer. However, everyone's favourite shadowy cabal, the scientists, are routinely destroying the careers of anyone who asks the justified question of whether the world has a designer, so that their ficticious fancy, evilution, can be propogated for some self-serving reason that nobody has deigned to tell us yet.
This was the premise of Ben Stein's artless propaganda-fest, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This documentary (is it too cheap to call it a cock-umentary? Probably) tenaciously painted a picture of hard working academic after hard working academic being fired, ostracised and ridiculed for bringing up the possibility of design in front of their brainwashed darwinist peers. The film claims there is a debate to be had and the evolutionists aren't engaging with it, they're just expelling those who disagree with them.
Now, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that many of the 'expulsions' in the film were horribly exaggerated or simply made up. However, if any expulsions of this type have occured, I would argue they were deserved. Contrary to what these film makers, and the ID movement, would have us believe, the debate is not being stifled. The debate has already happened and been won. Intelligent design is not a valid theory.
The view that the world was created by a god is not a plucky, new, revolutionary idea, it has been the default position since as far back as history can tell us. It is only in the last couple of centuries that science has been able to show the errors of that position and present alternatives. Creationism has been evaluated and has been rightly discarded. It bears none of the necessary marks of a science: it is not observable, it is not testable, it is not falsifiable and it cannot make predictions. It is simply not helpful. Creationism is incompatible with science and therefore anyone who proposes an intelligent design explanation clearly does not understand the scientific position and should not be a scientist.
Let's say a hypothetical man were fired from a metaphorical cheese factory for proposing that they should sell cheese made from shit. He could complain that he had been unfairly dismissed without his ideas having been given a fair hearing. However, the factory owners know enough about cheese and shit not to need this worker to squat down in the board room and give them a specimin to try. From their experience in the dairy industry, they know that however long you churn shit, it will never turn into cheese. And even if it did, it wouldn't matter because nobody would want to eat it. Indeed, they would be justifiably worried about having someone working for them that evidently had such little understanding of the way cheese, and indeed shit, works.
In a round-about analogy sort of way, the ID-proposing biologist is very much like our shitty cheese eating employee. Though he may complain at the unfairness of the scientific world's apparent refusal to evaluate his ideas, the truth is that the debate has already moved on and any scientist who can't recognise that deserves to be expelled.
Thursday, 12 February 2009
Happy Birthday Darwin
So today, we wish Charles Darwin a happy birthday and remember what he did for the furtherment of our understanding of biology. He was born on this day 200 years ago, and published his most important work, Origin of Species, 150 years ago - not on this day though, he was probably too busy opening presents and playing on the bouncy castle.
Contrary to the beliefs of many a creationist (at least I'd like to think it's only creationists and not also some of the more 'moderate' christians), Darwin Day is not an atheist Christmas. Darwin has not been deified and is not seen as any sort of god of some paradoxical atheist religion. The frequency with which it is possible to see claims to the contrary on the internet is a tribute to the popularity of this strawman delusion among the rationally challenged. Perhaps I am mistaken, however on the right hand side of this page is a list of blogs I read regularly, most of which are among the most godless, scientific and sceptical on the internet, and I have never read a word on any of them that I consider evidence that anybody - scientists or atheists - hold Darwin as anything more than an admirable scientist who made a great discovery.
However, one of the many strategies of the creationist movement is to rebrand concepts to twist their meanings to their own ends. 'Creationism' becomes 'creation science', 'creation science' becomes 'intelligent design', the lowering of scholarly standards to allow intelligent design into science classes becomes 'academic freedom'. These terms they have coined are intentionally misleading and untruthful - creation science has nothing to do with science and academic freedom is merely a nice sounding name for a trojan horse attack on the standards of curriculum teaching. However, these changes of tack allow the opportunity for subtle new attacks on rationality in society.
Similarly they routinely dub evolutionists 'darwinists' (the term 'evolutionist' alone is bad enough since proponents of modern ideas of disease aren't termed 'germ theory-ists'). This label is misleading. It allows the continuation of the strawman misunderstanding that those who believe in evolution are members of a kind of sect based upon Darwin. It also gives the impression that evolutionary theory has not moved on since Darwin's Origin, thus making oft-debunked arguments based on Darwin's mistakes or, even more pathetic, his supposed death-bed conversion, all the more pursuasive to those without a decent understanding of the evidence.
Modern evolutionists (we apparently still need this label, since it is still not the default position it should be) respect Darwin as physicists respect Newton. He was a great mind who authored a significant breakthrough in biology. He is, rightly, celebrated as such.
So raise a glass and put on a party hat (or not) and enjoy Darwin Day.
Contrary to the beliefs of many a creationist (at least I'd like to think it's only creationists and not also some of the more 'moderate' christians), Darwin Day is not an atheist Christmas. Darwin has not been deified and is not seen as any sort of god of some paradoxical atheist religion. The frequency with which it is possible to see claims to the contrary on the internet is a tribute to the popularity of this strawman delusion among the rationally challenged. Perhaps I am mistaken, however on the right hand side of this page is a list of blogs I read regularly, most of which are among the most godless, scientific and sceptical on the internet, and I have never read a word on any of them that I consider evidence that anybody - scientists or atheists - hold Darwin as anything more than an admirable scientist who made a great discovery.
However, one of the many strategies of the creationist movement is to rebrand concepts to twist their meanings to their own ends. 'Creationism' becomes 'creation science', 'creation science' becomes 'intelligent design', the lowering of scholarly standards to allow intelligent design into science classes becomes 'academic freedom'. These terms they have coined are intentionally misleading and untruthful - creation science has nothing to do with science and academic freedom is merely a nice sounding name for a trojan horse attack on the standards of curriculum teaching. However, these changes of tack allow the opportunity for subtle new attacks on rationality in society.
Similarly they routinely dub evolutionists 'darwinists' (the term 'evolutionist' alone is bad enough since proponents of modern ideas of disease aren't termed 'germ theory-ists'). This label is misleading. It allows the continuation of the strawman misunderstanding that those who believe in evolution are members of a kind of sect based upon Darwin. It also gives the impression that evolutionary theory has not moved on since Darwin's Origin, thus making oft-debunked arguments based on Darwin's mistakes or, even more pathetic, his supposed death-bed conversion, all the more pursuasive to those without a decent understanding of the evidence.
Modern evolutionists (we apparently still need this label, since it is still not the default position it should be) respect Darwin as physicists respect Newton. He was a great mind who authored a significant breakthrough in biology. He is, rightly, celebrated as such.
So raise a glass and put on a party hat (or not) and enjoy Darwin Day.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Vatican says evolution does happen. But of course, God did it.
Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, a representative of the Vatican, has admitted that the church has been hostile to Darwin in the past, considering the theory of evolution to run against Christian teaching. However, the church now accepts that the “time has come for a rigorous and objective valuation” of Darwin and they have concluded that maybe he wasn't so bad after all. They have now decreed that evolution is not incompatible with the Christian faith.
However, they have been slightly reticent in giving Darwin credit for his discoveries, quickly stating that evolution could be traced back to St Augustus and St Thomas Acquinas and that “in fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God”. Still it's a step in the right direction.
Ravasi's statement was also very clear in illustrating the papal position as being against Creationism and Intelligent Design. However, given that, as I understand it, most Creationists are from protestant denominations and seem generally to herald the Pope as some kind of devil anyway, I don't think that will change too many people's minds.
However, they have been slightly reticent in giving Darwin credit for his discoveries, quickly stating that evolution could be traced back to St Augustus and St Thomas Acquinas and that “in fact, what we mean by evolution is the world as created by God”. Still it's a step in the right direction.
Ravasi's statement was also very clear in illustrating the papal position as being against Creationism and Intelligent Design. However, given that, as I understand it, most Creationists are from protestant denominations and seem generally to herald the Pope as some kind of devil anyway, I don't think that will change too many people's minds.
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Heroic summary of the case against MMR causing autism
I don't really want to use this blog to re-post stuff from other people's blogs. It's lazy, for one thing, and seems to rather miss the point of having an outlet for my own thoughts. That said, however, I shall now go on and do just that.
As part of the aftermath of Ben Goldacre's (of Bad Science) ripping of a radio show on LBC by Jeni Barnett, Holford Watch have written an absolutely heroic summary of the evidence in favour of vaccinations. It contains more links that you could shake many many sticks at and is a generally excellent repository of scientific and popular information on the subject.
If anyone reading this believes that MMR causes autism (and is intellectually truthful enough to be willing to objectively evaluate evidence), I urge you to read this post and click through to a few of the links on there.
As part of the aftermath of Ben Goldacre's (of Bad Science) ripping of a radio show on LBC by Jeni Barnett, Holford Watch have written an absolutely heroic summary of the evidence in favour of vaccinations. It contains more links that you could shake many many sticks at and is a generally excellent repository of scientific and popular information on the subject.
If anyone reading this believes that MMR causes autism (and is intellectually truthful enough to be willing to objectively evaluate evidence), I urge you to read this post and click through to a few of the links on there.
Monday, 9 February 2009
Are you a terrorist? And what are you doing with that sock?
Harrow Council have reportedly started offering classes to help Muslim mothers recognise signs that their children are being recruited into extremist groups over the internet.
Apparently the signs to look out for are:
Add a warning to look out for rapidly diminishing supplies of tissues and socks, and every pubescent boy with an internet connection will be on their way to Guantanamo Bay.
Apparently the signs to look out for are:
young people becoming secretive about their web use and shutting down browsers suddenlyand:
becoming withdrawn or difficult after using the computerHmmmm, I don't think it's only Muslims being drawn into extremist groups who would exhibit those warning signs.
Add a warning to look out for rapidly diminishing supplies of tissues and socks, and every pubescent boy with an internet connection will be on their way to Guantanamo Bay.
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
Deal or No Deal's Psychic Test
The Australian version of Deal or No Deal has shown a special edition of the show where all the contestants are psychics (I don't know when it was aired, I just found it on Youtube).
It's a pretty brilliant idea to have psychics on this show. Contestants are asked to make definitely falisifiable predictions and those predictions are checked then and there to see whether they were right or not, so there's no room to make wooly predictions or wriggle out of misses.
The australian version of the show has an extra element that the British version lacks: every time a box is selected, the person holding that box is given the opportunity to guess what's in it, with a chance of winning $1000 if they're right. That means there are that many more falsifiable predictions to be tested.
There's a lot of padding on this show, but it's worth watching all the way through the above video and the other 4 parts on youtube to see how many of the predictions turn out to be true (spoiler: not very many).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
