I’ve been going about this all wrong. By “this” I mean the approach to blogging and as someone who claims to change one’s mind when the evidence suggests so, I must embrace the research that has been neatly compiled in this superb (free) document – The Debunking Handbook. Do yourself a favour and read this short ebook.

In the book, you will learn what the psychological research says about how to communicate in order to update and correct the information inside a person’s head. Specifically, you’ll learn about the various backfire effects that often hinder writers attempting to dispel myths, including:

• The Familiarity Backfire Effect
• The Overkill Backfire Effect
• The Worldview Bsckfire Effect.

The book describes approaches to presenting information that increases the probability of successfully changing minds (reducing the likelihood of backfire).

**For background on The Debunking Handbook and why it was created, listen to the Point of Inquiry interview with one of the authors, John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland in Australia.**

Don’t use a nuclear weapon where a simple pistol would do

I had been conscious of the fact that in writing 1000 word-plus blog posts may not be doing the reader any favours. In attempting to thoroughly obliterate ridiculous arguments and myths, I may have inadvertently reinforced the scandalous memes I was aiming my skeptical rocket launcher at.

Any good writer, especially the web content kind, knows the rule is that brevity is king. This is certainly true in the sense that people just don’t have the time or patience to read something that threatens to overturn the schedule for more than 5 minutes.

For a science writer and skeptic, this appeal to brevity takes on new meaning when the research quite clearly shows that excessive verbose corrections of myths will often lead to strengthening a myth’s hold on a person’s mind.

Besides, the cognitive appeal of a short snappy myth only increases when weighed up against a giant 20 point debunking.

So, I must be humble before the evidence and thank the authors of The Debunking Handbook for tying together what many of us intuitively knew about science writing but failed to really understand.

The Debunking Handbook is written by John Cook and Professor Lewandowsky - Australian scientists and founders of www.skepticalscience.com -  a great climate change resource for the public.

I am not a self-help author but I made it my mission to figure out what achievers do (that I wasn’t doing!) While my findings are hardly original, I hope anyone reading this (all 3 of you) will find something of value here.

The trouble with New Year’s resolutions

This is a funny time of year. Out of nowhere, people begin to imagine what they would like to achieve in the coming year. This is strange behaviour for many who rarely take the time to think about next week let alone a whole 365 days ahead.

Therein lies the problem – if you’re not used to thinking and planning exactly what you want then you’re likely to only do this for the first week or two of the new year. Another thing working against us is the tendency to place huge importance on the new year – forgetting that each day is just the same as the last.

In other words, once we have a setback (say eating far too much cake one week when trying to lose weight) it is easy for one to throw their hands in the air and say, “well, that ruins the goal”.

• Key #1: When suffering a setback into an old habit or something that works against your goal - refocus and resolve to learn and get back on track.

No excuses

Just get on with it!
But change is hard! It can be, but it helps to be aware that familiarity is an evolutionary in-built mechanism to help us feel a sense order and certainty and to conserve energy.

• Key #2: Just get started – overcoming inertia of starting something gets you moving. Each time you take the correct action the more familiar it becomes. One of the strongest drives in a human is familiarity.

Stop being the victim
I know a handful of people who repeatedly violate this one principle: If you want some thing to happen, sitting there waiting for it to happen is a sure way to fail.

While the principle applies when you want to attain a skill or acquire something, it also applies to relationships and people.

• Key #3: When setting goals, put the action steps in your sphere of influence. If goals require others then you need to clarify what it is that you can do to increase the probability of making your goal a reality.

**Warning: Watch out for subtle excuses and non-commitment. Sometimes people unconsciously engineer their own failure by expecting failure. Secretly, they don’t want to commit because then it gives them an excuse that will protect their own ego from the pain of failure.**

There is no try
Watch your language. People who set resolutions often say “I will try to lose weight” or “I am trying to…” Trying presupposes failure and shows a lack of committment. When other people use “try” with you, realise that they are basically avoiding promising what they say will happen.

• Key #4: Be specific. What is it you want? State it in positive terms, put a date on its completion. “Sometime this coming year” isn’t really going to stir you into action. “I will” is much more definite than “I might” or “I’ll try”.

Review regularly and exercise flexibility
How am I doing? What problems have arisen in the past week/month? Am I on track? What do I need to do in the next week to make my goal a reality? Am I guilty of being lazy?

• Key #5: Ask honest questions and be open to honest answers. If you’re sucking right now and falling off the path, find out what you need to get back on. It may mean correcting course a bit.

Consistency creates excellence
Create a daily/weekly plan. What exactly am I going to do to make this a reality?

It is okay taking the right actions for a week or two, but real achievement takes time, patience and consistency.

• Key #6: Break down your goal into bite size pieces. Make it relevant for today by planning concrete actions.

Keep it in perspective

• Key #7: Remember why you’re doing it. Your reasons must be real and powerful enough to stir you into action without hesitation.

Useful link – Richard Wiseman’s psychological research

• How to keep your New Year’s resolutions  – Richard Wiseman (*From Wiseman’s book 59 Seconds – Think a little, change a lot – A scientific guide to getting what you want).

This post is a critical response to David Balchin (Presbytarian Reverend)  of Waihi who claims that science isn’t justified in excluding God from scientific explanations. He does this by equating the efforts of legitimate scientists (evolutionists) with those done by creationists (non-evolutionists as he calls them).

… But science has now come to be redefined as the pursuit of knowledge within a naturalistic framework only. Thus God has been, by definition precluded from scientific pursuit, something that would have staggered the first scientists… Both naturalism and the supernaturalism that undergird each definition of science are non-falsifiable faith positions committed to an understanding of mankinds origin and purpose that is simply not empirically demonstrable.

Let’s look at the features of science that are relevant in showing the above claims about science are incorrect:

1. Falsification. Evolutionists (scientists) are trying to falsify a hypothesis. Non-evolutionists (creation scientists) are cherry picking data and conclusions to support a priori commitment to their belief in God.
2. Science is a method. No “faith” position is necessary to do science.
3. It is not the fault of science that supernaturalism is precluded, it is a flaw inherent in supernatural claims. If you can’t produce a testable outcome then we by nature can’t do anything with it. No test means there is no possibility of any new knowledge.
4. False equivalence – The methods employed in legitimate science are the opposite of what creation scientists do. Science progresses with reliable, verifiable knowledge. The fruits of intelligent design pseudoscience is disinformation.

No unjustified assumptions necessary

In practice, scientists don’t operate by the naturalism/supernaturalism distinction. They simply devise a test in an attempt to understand the phenomenon in question. How does it arise? How does it operate? There is no presumption a priori of naturalism.

“Science operates without any a priori ontological commitment as to what sorts of entities exist.” -Tom Clark, Why Science Can’t Get Us To God, Naturalism.org

Science is in a word, ‘agnostic’ to untestable entities.

But doesn’t assume science methodological naturalism?

Methodological naturalism allows science to get off the ground. When scientists devise tests they proceed on the basis that effects have causes that are in principle observable and quantifiable. If they didn’t the whole exercise would be pointless. By proceeding with experiments they implicitly assume there is a point to this exercise and there will be natural, testable phenomena.

“However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism – the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim.” – Rational Wiki

Philosophical naturalism is a position an individual can take but, contrary to what some theists claim, it is not needed in science.

Creationists are not doing empirical tests

5. Science requires that a scientist demonstrate how the claims were arrived at. This makes the process open to others to investigate, reinforce or falsify (science is an open system).

The scientist devises a hypothesis and sets out to test it. There is no commitment to any conclusion up front and they follow the evidence where it leads.

The creation scientist already believes certain unknowable (therefore unjustifiable) supernatural propositions and sees the world through that lens. Data is filtered through that prior assumption.

Creation scientists already bring a supernatural agenda to the table and therefore engage in confirmation bias – selecting evidence to support their claims while lying, denying and rejecting that which does not. This selective reasoning is exactly what enlightenment philosophers and scientists saw as barriers to unfettered pursuit of knowledge.

Of course, the creation scientists assume more than just the claim that God is a causal agent in the universe. Some believe the Genesis account is accurate history while other theistic scientists accept an older age of the Earth, others reject all those but still claim God can perform miracles at a whim.

**This poses a problem, if science were based on the presuppositions of the scientists involved, whose presuppositions do we accept? Catholic ones? Protestant ones? Muslim ones?**

Science would not be possible if presuppositions of untestable entities and unjustified assumptions were to infiltrate the process. Again, the fact that science can be done regardless of nationality, culture and beliefs is a strength of the method.

This way we converge on strong, reliable theories rather than divergent opinions of reality as is a feature of religion.

6. Supernatural claims are either unjustified presuppositions or premature conclusions.

At the end of the day, if there is an unjustified assumption X and the claimant cannot demonstrate why he or she thinks X is true, then it can’t be put forward as science. We use Occam’s razor to eliminate such unjustified assumptions.

After all the data is in we could still say, “Well God guided that process to happen”. This explains nothing and we are left with no choice but to ignore such pronouncements on scientific grounds. People are free to believe this if they wish but it cannot pass as scientifically valid.

This economy and parsimmony of science is one of its strengths.

Conclusion

While nothing can disprove an entity whose claimed existence is outside space and time (a contradiction as the very word existence implies physical existence) this is not a fault of science but more a fault with the proposition being made.

One of the strengths of science is that we can assign justifiable certainty to propositions – we can know something about the universe. This leads to theories that in turn allows us to make predictions about future observations. If validated, these predicted observations further strengthen the theories they stem from.

Science is a method that is simply agnostic – it says nothing about untestable entities or imagined realities. Is simply deals with what is – a strength that separates science from other human endeavours.

It is fair to say Garth George is on a personal crusade to change New Zealand society, which he sees as sick and depraved. An outspoken critic of abortion rights (or as George puts it “murdering babies”) he has clearly left the path of sanity in his latest rant against the Green party here in New Zealand.

One commenter to this article stated that the his entire piece could have been summarised by: ”I don’t like the Greens because they are anti-fundamentalist Christian”.

I would say that is true and Garth George’s diatribe highlights why some religious perspectives on morality are deeply flawed, bigoted and therefore relegated to the scrapheap of bad ideas. Take it away George:

The Greens are dangerous. They are more than a polite group of tree-huggers, slug-savers and water samplers but you rarely, if ever, hear of the more sinister planks of their policy, which are frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters.

“… Frightening to say the least to those of us who care about what really matters”. Aside from noticing the extreme condescension dolled out against opponents of his views, the question is, what exactly is it that “really matters”?

George wastes no time telling us exactly what issues are most important: abortion (sanctity of life); same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption (sanctity of marriage); “an education system which teaches that homosexuality is normal”; euthanasia (right to life of every person from conception to natural death).

Where have I heard that list before? Straight out of the religious fundamentalists handbook of intolerance and bigotry.

Not even moral

As is often the case with religious intrusion into moral debate, many of the arguments Garth George advances aren’t even moral in nature. Religious moral claims tend to come with the appeal to God, which means they are arbitrary and not necessarily based on any real effects in the world.

In reality, how do we evaluate what is moral? I submit that a civil and humane society in the 21st century bases its morality on innate, hard wired concern for the suffering and welfare of sentient beings.

A moral argument, therefore, has nothing to do with morality or is immoral if:

• It is based on an appeal to authority. This is by definition a bad argument. Authorities that are the arbiters of morality can and do make immoral pronouncements. In this case morality is arbitrary and solely dependent on the wishes of the authority in question, be that God, the Bible or a national dictator.
• It is based on “thought crime”. A distinction must be made between thought (no harm to others) and actions (actual harm to others). Religious morality, based on a totalitarian impulse to control, often condemns the mere thinking of something (e.g. sex, anger).
• It condemns actions that reduce suffering or do no intrinsic harm to others. Such condemnations are immoral.
• It condemns people for who they are and not what they do. For instance, homosexuals are persecuted for being who they are. This too is without moral foundation.

The humanistic tenet that George seems incensed by is the idea that human morality ought be centered around reducing harm and suffering and maximising wellbeing.

Homosexuality
Given this, it is clear that homosexuality is not a moral issue. Sure there are people who find it repulsive but repulsion is not a sound basis for a moral argument. I find eating cat repulsive but that is not a reason for me to denounce cat eating as immoral.

Homosexuality is “normal” in the sense that there is a clear biological and neurological basis for homosexual preferences and homosexual behaviour is witnessed throughout the animal kingdom.

Gay marriage
Gay marriage is also not immoral and does not affect the “sanctity” of marriage. Again, religion poisons the argument by saying that marriage has been somehow ordained by God as the union of one women and one man. Have they not read their Bibles? The Bible contains countless examples of men with multiple wives.

From a sacred covenant to a purley a legal arrangement for tax and property purposes… The definition of a marriage has changed constantly over the ages. The modern definition of marriage that has been “sanctified” by Christians is merely the latest incarnation. Opposition to civil unions of same sex couples amounts to denying some people rights that the rest of us have purely because of who they are. Bigotry anyone?

Euthanasia
Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is an issue that is often polluted by the Garth George and his ilk by making unjustified slippery slope arguments such as : “But if we allow voluntary euthanasia then that will lead to voluntary euthanasia and murder.” Cased closed they say. But not only is the preceeding assertion false it also denies the fact that there are certain situations where euthanasia would reduce months and possibly years of needless suffering.

Allowing horrendous suffering to continue despite no hope of improvement could be argued as positively immoral.

Polluting a legitimate ethical debate about abortion

There is an ethical debate that can be had around the issue of abortion. However, denouncing abortion as “murdering babies” is poisoning the well. No rational discussion be had thereafter, even though there are legitimate reasons for an abortion (the birth will likely result in the death of the mother, the baby or both for example).

The argument goes that even an early term foetus is a potential human being. But so is an unfertilised egg and a sperm cell. If we are concerned about potential human beings then it seems obvious we should mourn the loss of billions of sperm cells and millions of eggs.

Where personhood is granted is not a scientific question and is the subject of debate (although science can inform the debate).

I do agree, however, that abortion should be avoided where possible but it is not my place to dictate to a women what she can and can’t do with her body.

Further, Christians generally and the Catholic Church specifically increase the number of abortions by also condemning the use of contraceptives and actively discouraging sex education.

The control of sex is one area the church as had to regress from because a person’s sexual practices is none of their business. 

Overpopulation and concern for the environment

Interestingly, George is quoting a pro-life “mate” in making these comments instead of point blank making these himself. In any case, he clearly agrees with the claims of his buddy, including this doozy:

“We should recognise that the long-term objective of the Greens is to reduce the world’s population, creating a world in which nature is the dominant ‘right’ with humanity subservient to that ‘deity’.”

Here, George could well have been quoting someone from the 15th century. The concern for overpopulation and the ensuing environmental decay, pollution and pushing other species to extinction is hardly raising nature to the status of ‘deity’.

The notion that “God gave humans dominion of the Earth” is an extension of human self-importance and vanity and it has had dire consequences on our planet. Is it not morally reprehensible to act in ways that solely suits us at the expense of other forms of life?

Besides, if we accept his premise that concern for overpopulation is deifying nature we can at least say our deity actually exists.

Green supporters are guilty of labelling others as dangerous and evil (dogmatic opposition to genetic modification springs to mind) but I would hardly call their humanisitic agenda “dangerous” in the sense Garth George has. Abolishing oppression and prejudice is a sign of healthy progress in moral reasoning.

Many people, jokingly or not, have said they are off to Aussie. I find this rather amusing. The reason I assume people would contemplate going to live in Australia is because economic conditions over there are much better. But then do they think a Labour-led government would do a better job improving our economy than a National one??

People voted National in droves last night, which seems to be a vote of confidence for a party that can solve economic problems. More significantly, it looks to be a vote of no confidence levelled at Labour in the economic department.

What people fail to realise is that the welfare state in New Zealand is not as “uncaring” as many begrudged Labour voters seem to think. A trip to Australia would confirm that fairly quickly. National will not ignore social problems because it is not the “Boogeyman” from the political right.

The fact is that the Australian economy is stronger than ours in New Zealand. However, a key reason why is that they have a mining industry – the very thing most left leaning supporters have opposed here in New Zealand.

If we are to have thriving social programmes, education and healthcare, more jobs, then we can’t do it without moola. None of things are going to come free.

If we want a pie that is big enough to fund the kind of social programmes that Labour and the left want it is going to require looking after the pie, expanding it and not giving so much of it away in loan and interest repayments.

National are not a party so far to the right that they resemble the US Republican party. If they were like the Republican party then I would agree that National are an uncaring party who disenfranchise the “99%”.

The claim that National will benefit only the “super-rich” is also without merit. The rich in this country, a demographic never really defined by those who demonise them, are not a majority.

Most working New Zealanders and small business owners (read: employers/job creators) realise the economic realities we live in. While we could do much more in the areas of welfare, health and education, we will need a sound economy to do anything worthwhile. This is why Labour governments do good work during our economic “up” years.

On that note, I think the Greens doing so well is a good thing. They will bring some valuable perspectives to the table, particularly around energy and the issues surrounding pollution.

It is true that our primary industries are valuable money spinners for the country but it seems to be unsustainable long-term to allow farmers a free pass in the water pollution area. Greenhouse gas policy will continue to be a hot topic. An alternative to straight market-first answers is needed on such topics.

At the end of the day politics is about values, but as a skeptic, I hope to see policies (an opposition to policies) grounded in the best data and sound logic.

Heading to Australia is great, but I wouldn’t be doing so on the basis that our country is screwed while Australia is some golden land of paradise. If you want a better standard of living here, it seems fixing the economy and balancing the books is a top priority. National is who the people chose to do this and their logic is sound given the opposition.

Confession time – I have been a Dream Theater fan for 18 years so if I come off a bit gushy about them then please forgive me. To me, they are one of only a handful of bands who have the balls and talent to transcend the radio 3-minute mad music culture and create music that is truly Extraordinary.

The 2011 edition of Dream Theater is both vintage while heading at warp speed into some startling new areas – no doubt in part due to the absence of the drummer and cofounder of the band, Mike Portnoy. His replacement, Mike Mangini offers a fresh and exciting detour and his influence on the sound of the new album is apparent.

How to listen to a Dream Theater album

For many people, at least in my circle of friends, Dream Theater presents some challenges. As a fan of ice hockey, the gripe I hear from often non-hockey buffs is: “The game goes by so fast I can’t see the puck” and in many ways that is the way Dream Theater play music. Like a game of ice hockey, you have to experience the whole event to really grasp it because you will miss a lot if you focus on one part here or there.

Dream Theater have always stressed the importance of taking an album as a whole and listening to it from that perspective. Guitarist John Petrucci says this approach is best exemplified by Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of The Moon” – an album that had a major influence on him as a youngster.

“A Dramatic Turn of Events”

The new album is perhaps the most anticipated Dream Theater album for some time. I won’t go into the whole “Mike Portnoy leaves the band after 25 years” saga. I think Portnoy’s departure was positive thing for all concerned – Mike has his freedom and relief from burnout; Dream Theater has created a masterpiece of an album with a new cool new drummer. The new album wouldn’t have sounded exactly the same way if Mike was around pulling the strings

The album opens with On the Backs of Angels* – an intelligent rock sound with an ethereal sounding arpeggio intro. This is classic Dream Theater.

Build Me Up, Break Me Down continues the recent tradition of DT albums having a powerful straightforward rock tune at the top end of the album. “Black Clouds Silver Linings” had ”A Rite of Passage” and “Systematic Chaos” had “Constant Motion. “Build Me Up, Break Me Down” rarely quits it’s torrid pace and flows nicely into a melodic, classical sounding arpeggio solo just when the noise threatens to take over. Always brings a smile to my face.

Lost Not Forgotten is one of my favourite tracks on the album. From the beautiful melodic piano intro, to the driving chorus riff, this song has a lot to like. This song also contains the most insane passage of music Dream Theater have ever committed to record (which is saying something).

From then on, the album twists and turns nicely with epic tracks such as Bridges in The Sky and the melodic and riff intensive Outcry. After a short slow down with the song Far From Heaven (interesting in context, a bit boring in isolation), the album kicks back into full gear with Breaking All Illusions - to me, the best song DT have written in 10 years. The song’s mix of old school riffing, with lighter moments and an awesome extended Dave Gilmouresque guitar solo make this a true masterpiece. The song acts as a nice crescendo before easing into the melodic ballad Beneath The Surface.

‘Odd’ criticism

Some of the criticism of the album has included that it sounds like old Dream Theater. I don’t see this as something to be critical of – the album was always going to sound like Dream Theater and that is good for fans who obviously love their sound. So criticism that Dream Theater sounds like Dream Theater is a bit silly.

Similarly, the implication that the album doesn’t represent a creative difference from other albums deserves to be challenged. While a number of songs have undoubtedly similar styles of riffs and passages to previous songs, the overall mixture and final product overall is refreshing and every bit creative.

The approach and direction on “A Dramatic Turn of Events” is remarkably different and the result is an overall sound that DT have only hinted at over the past 10 years or so.

Criticism that the album is “too progressive” and technical in places sounds odd from the stand point of a Dream Theater fan. Progressive is what we want, expect and love from Dream Theater. Saying Dream Theater is too progressive in places is like saying a comedian is too funny. This what sets Dream Theater apart from most bands out there. They can play anything and fans of Dream Theater like them for that reason. Therefore the label “too progressive” seems a bit out of place here.

Final thoughts

Listen to the album as one big masterpiece rather than just one song. “A Dramatic Turn of Events” is the best album Dream Theater have produced in 10 years – melodic, interesting, fresh and kick arse – the boys harnessed the excitement of incoming drummer Mike Mangini and channelled some genius tracks from themselves. A new bar has been set in progressive metal.
——-
*Guitar World magazine has tutorials from John Petrucci on how to play “On The Backs of Angels“.

Consumers have no obligations to buy a rugby jersey at double the price they can get it online from UK and US stores. Adidas are dreaming if they think NZ consumers are dumb enough to pay exorbitant prices for a jersey they can buy for a price somewhat less than than their rent for the week.

Just ask the owners who led Whitcoulls and Borders into financial strife. I have only ever bought a book from Borders in New Zealand when it was heavily reduced in price. I refuse to buy an average sized book for more than $30. Many new release books are $40+. I’m quite happy to wait a few more days and get the same book from Amazon for $15-$20. With exchange rates in our favour, why wouldn’t consumers look online first?

Rugbystore.co.uk lists the 2011 All Blacks jersey at £64.99, which works out to be $NZ126 at the time of writing. Worldrugbyshop.com has it at $US89.99 (about $NZ105). Throw in a bit extra for shipping and you have your jersey at around 50% discount to what you can buy it here.

“If we continue to encourage people to purchase products overseas all that’s going to happen is New Zealand retailing will fall apart.” – David Hugget, Adidas NZ (NZ Herald)

The idea that we, the consumers would be somehow responsible for a decline in NZ retailing because we are unwilling to pay ridiculous prices for products, is simply flabergasting. If YOU – Adidas – price a jersey at excessive prices don’t blame us for buying from abroad and “causing NZ retailing to fall apart”.

I’ve never been to a store and paid more for a product out of some gesture of charity to a retailer. And I bet the owners of those retail outlets don’t buy from importers and suppliers that are going to charge them more than the guy 50m down the docks.

I do feel for retailers like Rebel Sport. They are at the end of the supply chain and so have to absorb all the costs along the way. The final price of the jersey, however, makes one wonder whether they’re made from super-strength carbon nano-fibres.

I admit there are a number of factors at play here – 15% GST, exchange rate volatility and higher fuel prices. But this price creep in All Blacks merchandise has been gradually getting worse over the past few years and I doubt that can all be attributed to external factors (some of which are favourable to importers). All Blacks training jersies I took a shine to last year were priced at about $NZ175.

Adidas – in true corporate spirit worsened their greedy image by revealing that the company is seeking to block cheap imports wherever it can. Wait a go guys – don’t cut the price to a more reasonable level for the average consumer – put it further out of reach.

I listened to Rebel Sport managing director Rod Duke on Radio ZB express his dismay at the unenvious position Rebel Sport and other retailers have been forced into by Adidas over the price of the ABs jersey. Duke says he will be holding some tough conversations with Adidas about pricing, where he will ask – “What the F@#k?” or something to that effect.

Whitcoulls, Borders, Adidas (I’m sure there are others) have perplexing pricing strategies. JB Hi-Fi singlehandedly killed DVD and CD sales in Borders on Auckland’s Queen Street and online stores are attracting armies of followers. Such is the evolution arms race in market economics – evolve or die and leave the excessive greed to the Gordon Geckos of the world.

There are various ways to minimise the cognitive dissonance that we experience when science treads on our precious beliefs. Denial is one way, the comments below that I respond to are largely blanket dismissals of science.

Statistical significance

Claim: “I believe my experience over what others tell me or insists is true.”
Response: I’ve never been to Madagascar but people tell me it exists. I couldn’t possibly believe them unless I went there myself.

It takes a degree of ignorance to make the statement that someone’s personal experience on a matter is somehow more valid than thousands of people who carefully test ideas over several years and decades.

This is why scientific medicine works while belief-based medicine is like a blind man in a dark warehouse trying to hit a dartboard.

I am not a scientist and am not qualified to do the research that scientists do in any field you care to think of. It would be silly for me to just flat out reject science because I haven’t experienced it myself. I can, though, be open to reason and learning and benefit from the knowledge that took others a lot of hard work to acquire. The observations, facts and logic are all open to me if I choose to study further.

The scientific method employs careful checks and balances that leads to information we can rely upon. No other area of culture employs such a rigorous standard of intellectual honesty.

Imagine if everyone settled on reality by way of accepting only their subjective experience. What could we possibly learn about external reality?

Everyone’s subjective experience is by nature different and so we stumble around without an external reference checking system.

We can develop technology, medicine and understanding because we all live according to the laws of physics and our anatomies, genetics, neurology and biochemistry are all the same (with obvious genetic variations).

Be objective as possible

Claim: “All interpretations are subjective”
Response: Aside from being a hasty sweeping generalisation it also represents a false equivalence. Subjectivity and objectivity exist on a continuum. Science allows us to be as objective as possible by controlling all the variables that could influence the outcome of an experiment.

The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what’s true. - Carl Sagan

There are legitimate philosophical debates about the nature of knowledge and objectivity. However, it is a fallacy then to say that scientific findings are as subjective as the musings of individuals.

Furthermore, the only reason a person would dismiss science and advance their own subjective conclusions is because it justifies them advancing whatever nonsense they like and calling it reality.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not to their own facts. -Steven  Novella

Facts are not negotiable and are by definition  publically verifiable. Facts are objective. Regardless of disagreements, if we make an observation that same observation could be made by someone else.

A molecule called DNA carries all the genetic  information for an organism. The effect of mass is to curve space. The human eye can detect only light in the UV range. The atomic weight of cobalt is 58.93 and trilobites are fossilised in Cambrian rock. These are objective  facts.

Detection and measuring equipment has further increased our ability to make finer and precise objective readings of reality. The effect  has been to develop more accurate models of reality and thus better technology.

Knowledge constantly evolves

Claim: “Interpretations in science change all the time”.
Response: Yes, scientific interpretations change constantly because our knowledge improves. This is a strength of science.

The fact we don’t know stuff and we learn more is what keeps scientists busy! The march of human progress and understanding continues!

An excellent analogy is that scientific theory is like the car. Components can be substituted or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of how a car functions. Theories will always be improved upon because the limits of  knowledge mean there will always be more to learn.

By contrast, modes of thinking based on personal experience and belief tend to stay stultified in the ideas of the past. Such is  the mechanisms of belief and cognitive biases. Science was designed explicitly to overcome these human tendencies to make faulty inferences and defend prior beliefs. Pseudoscience and superstition stop where science begins.

Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity didn’t replace Newton’s laws of motion – relativity gave us insights into the fabric of space-time and how physics operates at high speeds. Likewise, quantum theory doesn’t negate relativity but does give us a look into physics of our universe at sub-atomic levels.

Over time science converges on the truth – our  understanding of reality is constantly improving.

Converging on the truth

Claim: “There are multiple ways of interpreting data”.
Response: This comment is a version of “it’s only a theory” and it stems from ignorance of what a theory actually is. Science is a tool to discriminate between fact and folly.

Multiple ways of interpreting data is a feature of preliminary findings. Science advances by knocking down theories (falsification). While there may be multiple interpretations to explain a body of facts these are always provisional and multiple interpretations are gradually knocked off as scientists attempt to demonstrate that each interpretation is false.

After a time, it becomes absurd to hold on to any given interpretation because it is clearly false. The fact that people often do hold on to falsified theories is another reason why personal intuition is insufficient.

A strong interpretation (theory) connects all the dots from different lines of evidence and can predict as yet unobserved facts.

Read more information on the scientific method.

And CAM (complementary and alternative medicine) practitoners are scrambling. Unregulated, “alternative”, unscientific medical interventions are squarely in the crosshairs of the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Purveyors of dubious remedies and magical “cures” are now being taken to task for claims on their websites.

The immediate reaction of the CAM practitioners is of course predictable: “They’re limiting health freedom”, “the medical establishment are greedy”, “but the ASA are supposed protect the public”.

Which leads me to some specific reactions from an NLP trainer, practitioner and therapist Nick Kemp. Uneasy with the implications of the newfound teeth of the ASA, Nick wrote a blog post outlining what he sees as an organised attack on alternative health modalities.

The NLP (Neurolinguistic programming) community is unregulated externally and has a number of features of a pseudoscience. Nick is all to aware of this, pointing out that many NLP individuals and institutions write cheques they can’t cash in terms of claims.

Mentalists and skeptics Derren Brown and Banachek point out that there is some good stuff in NLP, but as a field unhinged from the need to prove its claims NLP amasses a fair degree of quack alternative ideas also.

Evidence please?

People who make claims that are supported by evidence have nothing to be afraid of.

However, CAM modalities are alternative because they do not pass scientific muster. If a modality works it becomes accepted as medicine and does not remain ”alternative”.

There is no ‘alternative versus conventional medicine’ dichotomy. The CAM industry has created this “us versus the elite establishment” semantic distinction, but it doesn’t represent the reality that there is either science-based medicine or unscientific belief-based medicine. The only real question that needs asking is “Is there objective evidence that it works?”

Avoiding the real question (does it work?)

So most of the complaints by CAM practitioners are elaborate red herrings and non sequiturs designed to evade the question “does it work?” Not just anecdotally, but is there science showing it works?

Nick Kemp’s main beef is that the ASA is being far too strict and doesn’t understand NLP or alternative therapies. Essentially, practitioners of all stripes, homoeopaths, naturopaths, chiropractors, NLP practitioners… Are crying foul and pulling the martyr card.

The need for public watchdogs

Mr Kemp also conveys some disdain for the Nightingale Collaboration - a campaign that challenges questionable claims made by healthcare practitioners in order to hold them accountable.

He says:

“Groups like The Nightingale Collaboration actively encourage “skeptics” to make complaints about websites to support their own agenda.”

He is dismayed by the fact the Nightingale Collaboration has previously attacked chiropractors, homoeopathy and cranial sacral therapy.

I pointed out to Mr Kemp that there is good reason why these health modalities deserve criticism – they don’t work! In the case of chiropractors, the essence of chiropractic (still claimed by many chiropractors) is sympathetic magic. When this was pointed out by journalist Simon Singh The British Chiropractic Association responded by suing him. This kicking of the hornets’ nest is why skeptics and other concerned citizens upped the anti in opposing false and potentially harmful medical claims.

Aside from a handful of good journalists like Singh and Ben Goldacre, the media has proven itself incapable of  properly informing the public about the reality of CAM quackery.

The public needs groups like the Nightingale Collaboration to publically hold purveyors of quackery accountable for the very real danger they pose in promoting belief-based medicine over solid science.

(See this Guardian article for some background information on the Nightingale Collaboration and why Simon Singh and others formed the organisation).

“Leave your logic and science at the door thanks”

When I put forth the true state of the evidence for homeopathy (it doesn’t work beyond placebo) this is the response Mr Kemp gave:

“As someone who has used homeopathy for 30 years I have enough evidence that it’s not placebo.

“As for the ASA vetting, well they are check ad copy and have no therapeutic insights. I could write a lengthy post about the absurdity of many ASA deductions, but don’t really have time at present!”

It is a shame Mr Kemp doesn’t have more time because I would really like to know how the ASA is making absurd deductions AND I would like to know what he uses homoeopathy for.

The deductions the ASA make are simple – if there is objective evidence something works and you are a properly qualified practitioner then great. If the objective evidence is not in or worse if it repeatedly shows the treatment is hooey, then you can’t make claims to effectiveness.

Mr Kemp’s statement about absurd deductions is rather ironic. Any way you look at homoeopathy, the deduction that it works beyond placebo is absurd.

Homoeopathy is absurd because:

• Double blind placebo controlled trials repeatedly show homoeopathy does not work.
• The proposed mechanism for homoeopathy violates the laws of physics, therefore proponents have a huge burden of proof on their hands that they cannot meet.

Unfortunately, Nick Kemp displays the precise thinking the ASA is meant to safeguard the public against.

Firstly, his appeal to 30 years of personal experience of homoeopathy typifies the kind of anecdotes that the CAM industry relies on as the definitive evidence. As clinical data is unfavourable to their cause they have to use anecdotes. They either don’t like science or believe anecdotal reports trump science. This is the very problem the ASA must throw cold water on.

Testimonials are great marketing devices (people love stories) but testimonials are poor evidence of clinical effectiveness. The reliance on testimonials is a huge red flag when flicking through practitioner websites.

Cures

Regulators like the ASA (UK) and FDA (US) have become increasingly sensitive to the word “cure” due to the large number of unsubstantiated claims to cures for all kinds of ailments, especially those relating to cancers.

Most of the claims with “cure” in them come from scientifically discredited modalities. The public absolutely needs to be on guard from these kinds of extravagant (read: absurd) claims by internet charlatans.

There are countless stories about people abandoning their cancer treatment, medical treatment and prescribed medicine on the advice of a quack practitioner. Until now, purveyors of cancer cures have been largely unaccountable for the claims on their websites.

Conclusion

Unregulated, unscientific modalities and practices need to be brought to the surface so that the public can make informed choices based on the best evidence available. This protects the public from being misled, ripped off and prevents the promotion of harmful (untrue) medical advice.

For too long claimants have not been required to meet reasonable standards of objective evidence. Often claims are reduced to what people want to hear, what people want to believe rather than what is responsible and effective. It is misleading and dangerous to make false claims and then hide behind “well, I am giving people the freedom to decide what’s best for them”.

If CAM practitioners really do subscribe to the dictum “first do know harm” why are they so unwilling to submit their work to the evidence?

I agree with Wishart

I never thought I’d say that I agree with Ian Wishart but I support his position that free speech is the loser in the debacle surrounding his book on the Kahui twins.

I am as insulted as any decent human being that no one has been formally punished for what appears to be the murder of two defenseless children. However, if we are to get to the bottom of this and justice is to be served, we should encourage all sides to be heard. At the moment we’ve heard nada.

Wishart’s book, Breaking the Silence – The Kahui Case is a tell-all from the perspective of Macsyna King, the twins’ mother. The ensuing public outcry is based in part on the claim that Mrs King will profit from the tragedy, a claim Wishart denies. He says Mrs King will not receive any of the royalties from the book.

Let’s hear what someone has to say. The knee-jerk “how dare you profit from the death of the twins” emotional appeals achieve nothing of value. 

Capitulation to the mob

Perhaps the worst aspect to this hubbub is the refusal of Paper Plus and the Warehouse to stock the book. This appears to be an act of utter cowardice and capitulation to a loud and angry group of Facebook users.

Why should some people decide what can or cannot be sold in a book store? What right do they have to deny others the choice?

I noted with amazement the statement in the NZ Herald by Warehouse representative Nick Tuck:

We have received significant comment from our customers today both directly and online with regards to this book. Overwhelmingly, they have told us that they do not wish to buy it or see it on the shelves.

This is where the disconnect with reason occurs and why Ian Wishart is correct in saying:

It’s a sad day for the New Zealand media because if we can’t tell stories by going to both sides and getting people to speak up because it offends various groups in the community, then freedom of speech is being seriously threatened. And also the rights of New Zealanders to buy books.

At the time of writing, Whitcoulls hadn’t made a call on whether to sell the book, though one feels that with the companies recent woes the phrase “beggers can’t be choosers” is appropriate.

Thankfully, one retailer - Booksellers NZ has maintained its integrity by not only choosing to stock the book, but they also stated: “We have never and will never ask or tell any of our members not to stock a particular title. The titles they stock are their choice as individual business owners.”

Conclusion

Disagreeing with the content of a publication is NOT a reason to demand it be suppressed. There is a reason free speech is cherished in democratic societies and why it is despised in authoritarian and ideologically driven ones.

As much as I disagree with Wishart’s  climate change denial and find his religious views somewhat puzzling, I support his right to make these claims and let the arguments stand or fall on their own weight.

It seems everyone loves free speech when it is their views being represented. Demanding our views be heard while expecting others to shut up when we don’t like what they have to say is the height of hypocrisy.