Sunday, August 23, 2009

What the Internet Can Do...

I was bemused to see that Betsy McCaughey had been fired after her interview with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. The Washington Independant reported:
Betsy McCaughey — an outspoken proponent of the myth that Democrats’ health care reform proposals will lead to the creation of “death panels,” as well as a former lieutenant governor of New York and adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute — has stepped down from her position as a director of Cantel Medical Corp., which bills itself as a “leading provider of infection prevention and control products in the healthcare market.”
Frankly, I don't like to use this blog for ANY political purposes because in general my take is that a lot of politics is beyond the scope of skepticism. Some questions don't lend themselves to a purely rational analysis, for example qualitative questions.

Regardless, this outcome reminded me of an ongoing debate in skepticism dealing with the role of civility and the value of ridicule in confrontations with differing points of view. I posted a tiny message on twitter and it cross-posted to facebook. And this exchange with Reed Esau and Daniel Loxton took place. I enjoyed the discourse so much that I didn't want to lose it - and there may be others out there that would like to comment on it. So I'm preserving it here on my blog.


DoctorAtlantis

DoctorAtlantis There are many skeptics who question whether ridicule is appropriate. Being nice is - well, nice. But check this: : http://bit.ly/3qvxcg


Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
Only sincere believers deserve respect. Cynical scam artists deserve to be hammered.
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
How about when you don't know whether the person is a sincere believer or not? Do you grant him or her the benefit of the doubt?

What about sincere believers like Jenny McCarthy who are causing demonstrable harm? Is she immune from ridicule? (pun mostly not intended)

Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
Yes, give the benefit of the doubt. Kevin Trudeau is fair game. Everyone else gets at least a high degree of civility.

Yes, public safety matters much more than civility. The ethical failing of rudeness is obviously much smaller than the ethical failing of spreading infectious disease. But here I make exactly the same "be nice" argument for strategic reasons: will the millions of people sympathetic to Jenny listen to us more or less if we sound like @#$holes? The folks who are thinking of not vaccinating are the people we have to communicate with…
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
It's a tough call, and I don't think there can be a single rule that covers every situation. When someone like Jenny McCarthy proposes that letting other people's kids die because she's afraid of science and medicine - that's probably too serious an issue to give her too much civility. For that matter, it's a complete failing of the media who give her such coverage in the first place when she's in a nut-ball minority who are willing to let roll back medicine to the 1700's because they've been privileged enough to be raised in a society where vaccines work well enough that people have forgotten how fucking awful it is when children die by the hundreds or thousands to disfiguring diseases.

So when I find myself wanting to say "Fuck that retard Jenny McCarthy! Her ideas are stupid and deadly!" It's difficult to balance that with understanding that fans of her boobs and nose-picking might not be aware that she also an advocate for dangerous idiocy that could hurt their children.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
And calling Jenny McCarthy retarded is also a big insult to retarded people, the vast majority of which are not trying to set the rest of civilization back a couple of hundred years.

So with that example we have a volatile issue in that fans of Oprah, who have seen McCarthy, might not be exercising the best critical thinking skills. After all, the appeal to authority of "I heard it on Oprah" is not questioned much in the average household. When I think of how many people assume Oprah's done all the fact-checking that's needed, it breaks my heart into A MILLION LITTLE PIECES.
Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
Yes, it upsets me, too. But again it's a communication issue. The same qualities that make people listen to Oprah — warmth and kindness among them — are the things *we* need if people are to listen to us.

But civil doesn't mean silent. You can be serious, civil, and loud. If an antivaccination proponent speaks up, it's OK (and necessary) to say, "These statements are not true — and they're reckless. Convincing parents of this false argument will have the result that people will die."
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
I think it is good that you remind folks of the importance of civility. I find that USUALLY I'm pretty civil. Internet forums sometimes bring out the worst in me, but even there I tend to flip over to advanced sarcasm and absurdism rather than, for example, personal attacks. After all, I don't know these people.

It's a bit like that Brian Dunning did on the "Sarah Palin is not Stupid" episode of Skeptoid. That whole idea is - really - an ad hominem attack. I do think some people are stupid, but calling them stupid is USUALLY not very helpful.

Are you calling for raised civility as a general reminder, or in response to particular cases of "skepticism" being associated with crass, vulgar, mean or other types of behavior?
Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
Just in general. I think it's always an important reminder, and all the more so as skepticism becomes more of an amateur movement and further removed from its academic roots.

(I hassle people about this on the other side, too. I've been outspoken about words like "woos," but also about terms like "scoftics.")
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
This is a fascinating topic. A few more questions:

Has this topic been addressed in our literature - magazines, books, etc.?

When a fellow skeptic is uncivil towards a believer, what's the best course of action?

I wonder if it'd be helpful to establish rules of civility for SkeptiCamp, where we suggest it be part of an introductory session for every event?
Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
It's funny: I was just thinking this could be a good little essay…
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
I've definitely seen it break down before in a public forum - specifically at a Skeptics-in-the-Pub event. (Without getting into the dynamics of in-group/out-group social interaction) If the purpose of those events is to grow the ranks of skepticism that's not the same as just spreading skeptical thought, IMHO. I've got to suspect it has been covered in the lit somewhere - but I just saw a pop-up saying Daniel had commented here, so I'm going to save this and see what he wrote. :)
Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
It's really the same conversation as the TAM7 prudery thing: the goal of entertaining existing skeptics requires a different approach than the goal of doing public outreach and harm reduction. I care about the latter far more, but the former gives us the support of a community of skeptics… There's an inescapable tension.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Indeed, but setting an example for how to engage with civility is not just admirable, it may be key to the survival of skepticism as a community in the long run. After all, the dynamics of group growth invariably includes fracturing into smaller sub-sets and that ability to maintain civil discourse - in the majority of interaction - will be vital to keeping over-arching self-identity. (In my opinion.)
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Where can we get good examples of skepticism engaging in civil discourse? And bad examples? Might make for an interesting video.
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
Agreed on the need for examples to help one internalize the guidelines better.

This info could take a number of forms. The essay that Daniel mentions. Blake's video, my SkeptiCamp slides, etc.

I think we have a problem with skeptic project proliferation. :^)
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
I'm also curious to know how civility guidelines relate to a project like this:

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/06/06/a-code-of-conduct-for-effective-rational-discussion/

Are they the same thing, or do they merely share some overlap? If the latter, where do we draw the line?
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Reed, you're right. On the other hand, it's nice to have my brain working at well over its normal 10%. ;)
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Per your link, I'd say there is "some" overlap but that article is about rational discussion. Daniel's point - if I may be permitted to comment on how I understand it - has to do with civility in discourse that might not be rational at all. For example, when discussing with a believer - a SERIOUS believer - in a UFO cover up, it may not be easy to be civil and polite when you're being shouted-down as a government shill. Yet I think there is a value to keeping one's composure if it can be done.

I also think one can calmly engage such a person and still use ridicule and sometimes win the argument and the crowd just by being the one that does not melt-down under fire.
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
One can apparently go too far in pursuit of civility, such as by creating an oppressive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_code where being "respectful" prohibits discussion of topics that some might find uncomfortable - e.g., the Holocaust or gender differences.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Oh - and for a good example of how to behave, Shermer's interview on the Skeptiko podcast (which appeared to be a very bizarre interview) is a great example of how to keep one's cool in what looks to have been a misrepresentation. Likewise with his public commentary on Expelled.

Not to be hypercritical of Shermer but if you take these two good-examples, and then compare to how he reacted to being punked by "Shirley Ghostman" I think you get a great compare/contrast. And I suspect that Shermer himself might agree with that - if he's not still mad about the Ghostman punking.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Oh, I agree Reed but you can go too far with anything. I think Daniel was just talking about giving a strong endorsement to the importance of civility when engaging opponents. After all, no matter how hard we try to use rationality - in the end we're just fancy monkeys and that urge to fling poo is still very close to the surface.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
Of course I'm SUPPOSED TO BE PROGRAMMING! Feel free to keep chatting about this. I'll try to comment as I have time. Got a deadline to hit.
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
Michael Stackpole's talk at TAM 5.5 and last year's D*C may be relevant as well to this topic. I don't know if there's a video available. He describes techniques on keeping a cool head and maintaining civility while crushing one's opponent.
Reed Esau
Reed Esau
Agreed that Daniel isn't going so far as to propose a speech code. I raise it largely as a point of contrast. Though I doubt that anyone will accuse us of promoting a speech code, it's helpful to describe how our effort is different.
Daniel Loxton
Daniel Loxton
Wow, what a great thread! I agree with everything you guys just said, including the fact of Shermer sometimes being a terrific example. His best work, like the holocaust stuff or some of his conversations with creationists, involves sitting down with that totally unflappable attitude and really talking with crazy people — and really getting the inside scoop on what they think.
DoctorAtlantis
DoctorAtlantis
This is exactly the kind of conversation I've always wanted to have in a coffee-shop. Only (a) that never happens around here in coffee shops and (b) the results wouldn't be documented like this for future reference.

Thanks guys. Now we all have some additional projects to work on. JUST WHAT WE NEEDED.




So that's the thread. Got anything to add?
Be civil. ;)

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Examiner? I checked out every bit of her.

So... the Examiner.

After reading some crap over there I decided to see if I could get a job writing for "The Examiner." Rather than link to the actual article, I'll like to Chelsea's brilliant deconstruction over at SkepChick.

I have formally submitted an application to become a writer for "The Examiner."

I wonder if truth will show up in a different font in their stylesheet?

Another Wiseman Ghost Post

The conference-center ghost?
After all the research I've done on ghost photos I think they're terrible 'evidence' for ghosts, but I find it fun to examine them and see if I can figure out how the image was made.

Wiseman's blog entry today has a new photo.

Here is the untouched photo:


And here is a light-blasted, contrast-adjusted blow-up of the "figures by the plant":


With these adjustments the "figure" on the left disappears. The one on the right MAY be an actual person - but the "face" seems a little iffy to me. Is it a simulacra of a person caused by pareidolia? I don't know.

I'm waiting to see some comparison shots of the venue - the name of which the person submitting the photo would not release at this time.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Beware the Spinal Trap





(Note: this is the infamous article on chiropractic that got Simon Singh sued. It is being reposted all over the web today by multiple blogs and online magazines.)

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

----------------------------------------------------------

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Pantry Ghost - Better Explanation

I was working on trying to prove this with a re-creation, but I think Captain D. here did an excellent job.

Perhaps I need to buy a Mac.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

June Bug 3-Way



Two males compete for a female and hot June-Bug action ensues.


I've always found it odd that June Bugs usually come out in July around here in GA.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

96.7 - The Legend - and the Choice

Here's an open letter to the folks at 96.7 - The Legend. Tonight I heard a very disturbing commercial for a company called ITV that appears to be trying to push the snakeoil solutions of Kevin Trudeau.
------------------------------------
Hi Shane,

I love your radio station but was very disturbed to hear advertising promoting fake cures for diseases such as HERPES. Shane, science isn't out to trick everybody. HERPES is a virus and there is no cure for it - herbal, magical or scientific. The book that ITV claims to be giving away for free appears to be a step for marketer Kevin Treudau to bypass FTC rulings prohibiting him from advertising. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Trudeau)

His book can LITERALLY lead people do die by encouraging them to stop taking their medications and try his fake remedies.

Please tell your advertising department this important message: Dead listeners don't buy stuff. It's a fact. Your company can do the right thing and get another client.

I hope you respond to this and consider doing the right thing. In a time when dollars are tight it is harder to do the right thing when it comes to money - but promoting death and illness for the sake of a few dollars should not be the standard of behavior for such a cool country music station as yours.

Sincerely,

Blake Smith
Kennesaw GA.