Fighting Pseudo-Science, Prime Time Edition

Unfortunately I did not write my contribution to the Accretionary Wedge #2 (How the Earth Can Kill You). I am going to post this thought though. although I understand it is a poor replacement. Read the Accretionary Wedge first, there are some excellent contributions this time around, then you can come back here.

During an ad break in a football game Sunday I overheard a promotion for a new show on NBC, called Phenomenon, which is allegedly in search of the world's new "mentalist". The show is starring Chris Angel (who had a magic, err, excuse me, mentalism show called MindFreak where he entertained with a "distinct blend of magic, mentalism, and dazzling pyrotechnic effects") and Uri Geller. That's right, wanna-be magician, swindler, liar, and all around jackass Uri Geller is trying to make a comeback. For those of you who don't know who Uri Geller is, (or why he is always standnig around with an ED-afflicted spoon) he came to fame in the 70's with his claims of psychic abilities, including his most famous illusion, bending a spoon with his "mind." The folks over at the Denialism Blog have a nice summary and two exceptional videos showing 1) Geller getting debunked live on the Tonight Show thanks to tips from skeptic and debunker-of-BS James Randi, and 2) One of Geller's "secrets" getting caught on camera.

Even though Geller was before my time, I know of him primarily through my brother, who became a big fan of Randi's when we were young. My parents also took us to a live show where James Randi was the main speaker (and where my brother got to be the person who held the magic spoon as it was bent and broken by Randi's "mind"). I have no problem at all with illusionists, I think they can be entertaining, but whenever anyone tries to pass off their tricks as proof of supernatural abilities, well, that's just too much. People like Geller (or even worse Peter Popov, also featured in the videos I linked to) often use their tricks and personality to swindle people. Although these are two extremes, I think these characters and their techniques speak volumes about our role as scientists in society. We do not know everything, we aren't always right, and science has been used for plenty of bad reasons, but one of our duties, I believe, is to single out and call Shenanigans (or BS) when applicable. Although many things we see are not as blatant as Geller or Popov, they can be much more dangerous. Most pseudoscience is really just a slight variation on their themes, misdirection and manipulation. We see it with the ID crowd, the young-earth crowd, the "CO₂ is life" crowd, it's really the same idea, misdirect and make it so there appears to be only one possible answer. I think the use of the term "irreproducible complexity" (a Beheism) is a direct analog to the "mentalist" illusion; It must be ESP/Supernatural Forces, what other explanation is there?!?!?

What is most baffling to me is this: Geller's whole spoon thing is completely debunked, so how does he get away with it? Maybe that is his real magic trick, convincing people to continue to believe his BS even when he's been outed a thousand times. Popov at least went bankrupt, but now Geller gets a new show?

And finally, am I the only one who is convinced that Uri Geller was the inspiration for Gob Bluth from Arrested Development, perhaps the funniest American television show of the last 5 years? You be the judge, can you guess who is who?



And just in case the video link from the Denialism Blog isn't working, here is one of the videos I mentioned

I'm sorry, I must have missed it when you said "and geology"

I was reading two articles on the New York Times Science section today (in 12 minute bursts, keeping in time with the machine I am running). I had first thought of posting about the intersection of the two. The first article was about a creationist film crew that allegedly tricked actual scientists into taped interviews. The interviews were done by entertainer, eye-drop enthusiast, and noted blowhard Ben Stein*. The scientists involved are now raising a ruckus, although I am not sure why they'd agree to be interviewed for a project they didn't know much about. The second article was talking about when Sputnik was launched, and how it made the US realize how behind it was in preparing future generations of scientists. This led to a big push to improve American science education back in the middle of last century. Unfortunately, we have once again seen American students fall behind much of the world in science education. As a country, this threatens our competitiveness, and I thought the first article did a decent job highlighting just how bad our national science education is. The ID crowd is just one symptom of a broken system of science education, and in my opinion their attempt to include supernatural powers in the definition of science is an enormous threat to the U.S. (for more on my feelings, check out my very first post or a letter to the editor I wrote.)

OK, so I was getting all riled up about this, but then as I finished the second article, I came across this

Some experts on science education also point to the typical sequence of high school science instruction: biology, chemistry and then physics. It would make more sense in reverse, these people say, because the principles of physics underlie chemistry, which is crucial for an understanding of biology.

Perhaps the leading champion of this “physics first” approach is Leon M. Lederman, a particle physicist, Nobel laureate and former director of Fermilab whose focus lately has been on improving science and math education. He said the current biology-chemistry-physics sequence dates from the late 19th century, when “we didn’t know enough” and biology was considered a “descriptive” subject.

In fact, Dr. Lederman said, “biology is the most complicated of all subjects, and it is based on chemistry and physics.” And, he added, “there is nothing in chemistry, no fact of chemistry or process of chemistry that if you ask ‘Why does this happen?’ you don’t go back to physics.”

While I don't disagree with the premise of teaching physics first, where the hell is geology? Seriously, we want to build up to inclusive and interdisciplinary sciences that are important for the problems of the world, and no one mentions geology? For f@#k's sake! I am sure we can all post for years about why geology or even the generic earth science are not considered important disciplines (even by Nobel Laureates, and in the same article that worries about global warming), but what this makes me most frustrated about is our inability as geoscientists to sell the significance of our work. As Lederman points out, biology used to be thought of as a descriptive science, so it came first. Is that the problem with geology? Are we thought of as describers of rocks and finders of oil? I've heard this before, that geologists are seen mainly as suppliers of products (minerals and oil), and not as scientists. OK, time for Thermochronic to get some air...

*By the way, Stein is apparently trained as an economist, where did he pick up his scientific background? What makes him qualified to comment on the subject at all? What's next, Ben Stein tells you how to treat Alzheimers? Ben Stein debunking the myths, cigarettes are good for you? Ben Stein talks about the pros and cons of Pfeiffer and Varian roughing pumps? Shouldn't you actually have some expertise in a subject before you spout off strong opinions? Should I be telling Loose Baggy Monster about literature or history? Perhaps I can be called upon to give my opinion on the effect of American corn subsidies on foreign currency markets? Hell, I have a Ph.D., somebody get me a camera! Stein discussing the biological sciences must look a lot like the panelists on the video below


Situation In Nigeria Seems Pretty Complex

NCSE Web Resources

The National Center for Science Education is now offering free access to a variety of digital resources dealing with recent evolution related trials and general evolution and science promotion. I haven't checked out the files myself [yet] but the NCSE has a good track record, so I thought that shouldn't stop me from advertising.

To see the archives click here.

Thermochronic's Favorite Online Journal

In college we used to be able to get paper copies of The Onion regularly, anyone traveling up to Madison for some culture on the weekend would always bring one back. When The Onion went online it spawned a rash of internet based time wasting unmatched in modern times. Sometimes their articles, although intended to be funny, are sadly on the mark (look at the publication date of that article). Many times, their science related articles are hilarious, here are some of my favorites, in no particular order:

• Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
• Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method
• Bacon Good For You, Reports Best Scientist Ever
• Caltech Physicists Successfully Split The Bill
• Evolution in our Schools - What Do You Think?
• National Science Foundation: Science Hard
• Late-Working NASA Scientists Discover Moons Over My Hammy
• Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000 Year-Old T.Rex Skeleton
• Study Finds Jack S**t
• Revolutionary New Insoles Combine Five Forms of Pseudoscience
  

This last one isn't from the Onion, but it cracks me up nonetheless. I had it on my office wall in grad school, the caption to Figure 1 is perhaps the greatest part.

• Electron Band Structure in Germanium, My Ass

Enjoy.

Letter to the Editor

Yesterday I wrote and submitted a letter to the editor of the student paper here at ESRU in response to another letter written by an undergraduate discussing intelligent design. My thoughts on the matter are best summer up in this post, but I thought I'd post the original version of my letter nonetheless. I had to shorten the final submission to 250 words, yes, 250 words out of a 12 page paper. I will have less room than a Dominoes ad, but that's the rule! Doesn't matter how many letters are submitted. Anyways, here is the original version, with names omitted to protect the innocent.

In his recent letter to the editor entitled “Consider Creationism without bias,” Mr. Snuffleupagus confuses intelligent design, creationism, evolution, and a belief in God. Believing in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, just as supporting the teaching of intelligent design is not a pre-requisite for people of faith. The reason intelligent design should not be taught in a scientific setting is because of how drastically it changes the definition of science. For hundreds of years, the scientific method has been applied in roughly the same way, creating testable hypothesis, conducting experiments, and refining those hypotheses. Inherent in this is the assumption that there are natural laws that govern the world. What intelligent design does is enter supernatural forces into the mix, something that by definition does not follow natural laws and is therefore untestable. It is one thing to push for supernatural explanations in branches of science most people consider esoteric, but the true test for intelligent design is whether or not you would accept supernatural explanations in all branches of science. Would you accept them from your doctor? Would you accept them from the building engineers or FDA food inspectors? How about physicists who handle nuclear waste, or forensic scientists providing evidence in a murder trial? Of course not, if you went to a doctor deathly ill and they came back with a supernatural diagnosis, you’d find another doctor, one who would run tests and perform experiments until they determined what was wrong using the scientific method. If the engineer’s assessment of the structural stability of your new office building was based on supernatural forces, you’d find another engineer. If you will not accept supernatural explanations in branches of science that directly affect your life, then you cannot accept supernatural explanations in any branch of science.

Please do not confuse evolution with atheism, or intelligent design with science. Evolution, like gravity or plate tectonics or electromagnetism, is a scientific theory; one that has been tested and refined thousands of times and is still the topic of very intense study. Intelligent design is not science, because it profoundly changes the meaning of science and of the scientific method in a way that is potentially very harmful. Belief in science does not preclude belief in a higher power.

Thermochronic
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Department of Earth Sciences

Mississippi House Bill 625 Dies!

Woo-hoo! The Mississippi House bill (#625) I blogged about here officially died in committee on January 31st. This bill would have required Incompetent Design to be taught in public schools along with evolution. This bill said nothing of the flying spaghetti monster, probably an oversight by the bill's author, Mike Lott.

Attention Mississippi Voters

Just a brief note referring everyone, especially those of you who may live or vote in Mississippi of State House Bill 625, put forward by Rep. Mike Lott, which would require that if evolution is taught in public schools, then both creationism and intelligent design must be taught as well in order to provide the students with "a comprehensive eduction in science." I'll also cross post with another related geoblogospheric post from our good friends at ...Or Something, and provide a general like for those interested to the National Center for Science Education. Those of you who agree there needs to be a balance in science education are also directed to one of my favorite alternate theories.

Al Gore and Condoms

I'd like to direct you all to another geology blog called ...Or Something and a recent post that discusses the teaching of science in classrooms. Not only is it a good take on an interesting article, but it somehow gets the words "Al Gore" and "Condoms" into the same sentence.

Friday, January 12, 2007
The myth of the "opposing view"

"Condoms don't belong in school and neither does Al Gore."

I can't resist commenting on this article...even if no one reads it...and even though I should be working right now. Below are excerpts from the report (click on link above to see original) and then my snide remarks in this font.

incompetent design

For my first official post I have decided to address an issue I feel to critical to the future of not only earth science, but science in general, that is, the seemingly never-ending attacks on the theory of evolution, or the so-called “intelligent design” movement. For those who don’t know, the idea is that life is so complex, so improbable, so intricate, that it could not be random, and that instead there must be an intelligent guiding force guiding it all.

There are many ways to think about this argument, some of which I’ll explore in this posting. First, theories…. The word theory is used often in science, and its meaning is typically different than in non-science life. For example, I have a theory about how the NBA could be exciting again if they shortened the season to 40 games. It is something backed up by years of observation, but nevertheless far from proven, and definitely arguable. In science, though, theories have much higher standards. As a matter of fact, almost every important idea or sets of ideas are still theories: gravity, relativity, plate tectonics, calculus… Really, every idea or “natural law” is a theory. There is not a scientist in the history of the world who could prove, for example, that if I threw my keys out of he window that they would fall towards the ground. No way, there are all kinds of theories one would have to assume are correct; gravity, principles involving wind resistance, the list is really endless. The fact that I could run and repeat the experiment hundreds of times with the same result means nothing. Proofs are not arrived at through experiment; proofs instead are relegated exclusively to the field of mathematics. Any scientist, who says they have “proved” something, really means they have significant experimental evidence that does not disprove their idea. After hundreds and hundreds of experiments, an idea is refined and eventually that idea is elevated to the status of theory. Most of the big theories in science, evolution included, have withstood the scrutiny of thousands and thousands of experiments.

So, the fact that evolution is a theory, and that it has not been “proven”, is not a surprise. Nor is it a reason to think less of the idea, unless of course you are also willing to cast an equal amount of suspicion to gravity, electromagnetism, the theory that viruses cause disease, etc. Anyone who says their position is about evolution being a theory is a complete hypocrite unless they refute other well-studied theories with equal energy.

The second argument I’d like to discuss is the idea that since science can’t explain something, then it is unexplainable. Anyone who works on natural systems is not surprised at all that there are unexplainable phenomena is any discipline. Actually, most of us are grateful for this! After all, that is why there are jobs in science! That is why we could find funded PhD projects. That is why there are hundreds, probably thousands of highly trained scientists still studying evolutionary biology. If all of the questions were answered we would all have to find new jobs! Unexplainable phenomena are one of the most exciting catalysts in science, all you need to do is look at the history of any major idea in science to see how the desire to explain led to discovery.

Another arguments the “intelligent design” community uses is that there are, in fact, scientists who do not believe in evolution. But, because of some vast conspiracy among “mainstream” science, those ideas are never allowed to be presented. Anyone who understands science will realize that this is absurd. Of course, there are plenty of historical examples where ideas were at first rejected, and later became well accepted. The key, though, is that those ideas were eventually proved through experiment. “Intelligent design” is, by definition, untestable. If there are supernatural forces, then of course they cannot be tested for using natural laws, that’s just logic. Also, every scientist knows that the path to professional fame and glory is not the same beaten path everyone before them has walked. To become truly famous as a scientist, you must either devise a radically new theory that no one else has thought of, or disprove a widely accepted theory. If there was solid experimental evidence disproving evolution, then whomever published it would be the most famous biologist of the 21st century, hands down. Incidentally, the same can be said for cries of conspiracy coming from those who don’t believe in global warming.

Aside from all of these things though, in my opinion the biggest reason to speak out against the “intelligent design” crowd, is what their position requires of the meaning of science. The scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis, designing an experiment to test that hypothesis, and then using the results of the experiment to reject or refine the hypothesis. Rinse and repeat. Of course the implicit assumption is that there are natural laws. By experiment, we can come closer to understanding them. What intelligent design states is that there aren’t natural laws, well, there doesn’t have to be laws, basically anything can happen at anytime, and if you don’t understand something, then there is no reason to try to explain it, it must be supernatural. One can only wonder what the course of science would have been if this mentality would have been adopted generations ago. Radioactivity is the classic example. When the first observations were made of radioactive material, there were no existing theories that could properly explain the observations. This led to an amazing period for science where our understanding of the atom expanded incredibly (to horrendous consequences, I’ll add). If the intelligent design crown was around with Henri Becquerel, they would have probably said, “we don’t understand, must be supernatural, lets go home and forget about it.” Same with relativity, microbial theory…. the list is really endless.

The truth is that for most of the country, whether or not they believe in evolution makes little difference in their daily life. But for everyone in the world, this change in our definition of the scientific method has dramatic consequences. If we are to ascribe everything we don’t understand to supernatural forces, this changes everything. The real test as to whether or not people truly accept “intelligent design” is not about evolution, but instead if people are really willing to accept the change in the definition of the scientific method throughout their life. If they are willing to accept intelligent design, then they must also accept the following:

1. You are sick. You are feverish, vomiting, and nauseous. You feel like you are getting worse, so you go to the doctor. The doctor runs every test they can think of, every one inconclusive. Your doctor returns and says, “Well, this doesn’t look like anything I have ever seen, must be supernatural. You might as well go home.” Would you accept that? Of course not, you would want the doctor to continue to apply the real scientific method to determine the cause of your illness. If this doctor gave up, you would want a second opinion. This is of course what happens with most new illnesses, AIDS, ebola, whatever, at first, the doctors have no idea, but after diligent application of the scientific method they can start to understand the causes of illness, and hopefully work their way towards a cure.

2. Your car doesn’t work, so you take it to the mechanic. He looks around under the hood, everything looks OK, so, it must be supernatural. Yeah right, you assume that everything in your car works according to mechanical laws, analogous to natural laws. If your car isn’t working, then there is a logical explanation for it. Just because you don’t know that explanation yet is no reason to think there isn’t one.

3. After a major earthquake you find cracks in the foundation of your house. You bring in an engineer to determine the extent of the damage, and tell you if it is safe for you and your family to move back in. The engineer looks at the cracks, thinks for a minute, and says, “well, if gravity had been proven, then perhaps I could make sense of this, but since it hasn’t, I can only say that it must be supernatural forces that determine if this house will stand or fall.” Would you accept that? Of course not, that’s absurd.

OK, I can of course go on forever with these types of examples, but you get my point.. The truth is that this is how we need to explain and argue against the “intelligent design” movement. People have been trying to disprove evolution for more than 100 years now, but experiment after experiment reaffirms and refines the theory. But, for more of the world, this means little. The direct implications for most people are really with how the scientific method will change. If they are not willing to accept this new definition when it comes to their health or livelihood, then they cannot consistently accept it in any branch of science.