 Newsletter
34
December 1, 2003
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and
not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to
have answers that might be wrong." --Richard Feynman
In this issue: Greek translation of the
dictionary underway; two new entries and a few changes; a few awards for
pseudoscience, chutzpah, and gullibility; some comments on religion and
medicine; another laundry ball; a complaint and a thank you; a new Penn
& Teller Showtime event; and some end-of-the-year reflections.
Changes to the Web sites
George Moustris has begun posting Greek
translations of Skeptic's Dictionary entries. George is a Ph.D.
candidate at the National Technical University of Athens, where he is
working in the intelligent robotics and automation laboratory. He believes
that the translation will help spread skeptical reasoning in the .gr domain.
I hope so. I am very grateful to George and the other translators who have
volunteered their time to bring The Skeptic's Dictionary to
a wider international audience.
The Portuguese Web site has moved to
http://brazil.skepdic.com/.
Two new entries to the dictionary have been added:
magical thinking
and the autokinetic effect.
I posted a
commentary on George Barna's claim that, based upon the results of his
latest poll, morality continues to
decline. His ideas about how to
measure morality are very different from mine. I also
posted a commentary
on a very irritating article by Libby Copeland of the Washington Post
about pet psychic Sonya Fitzpatrick.
I added the following paragraph to the entry on
the law of truly large
numbers (coincidences):
Carl Jung, like many people who have experienced an uncanny pairing of
events, did not think such happenings are mere coincidence. He developed
the notion of synchronicity
to explain "meaningful coincidences." He described synchronicity as an
acausal principle that links events having a similar meaning by their
coincidence in time. However, if you think of all the pairs of things that
can happen in a person's lifetime and add to that our very versatile
ability of finding meaningful connections between things, it then seems
likely that most of us will experience many meaningful coincidences.
The coincidences are predictable and we are the ones who give them
meaning. Given the fact that there are billions of people and the possible
number of meaningful coincidences is millions of billions, it is
inevitable that many people will experience some very weird and uncanny
coincidences every day.
The revised mini-lesson on
fallacies
is finished.
There were two additions to the New Books page:
Consciousness: An Introduction by Susan J. Blackmore (Oxford
University Press 2003) and
Psi Wars: Getting to Grips with the Paranormal by James E. Alcock
(Editor), Jean Burns (Editor), Anthony Freeman (Editor) (Imprint Academic,
2003).
There were several additions to the readers comments files: the
Rorschach, the
argument from design
(much ado about chance, contingency, and speculative probabilities),
homeopathy, and
the ganzfeld
experiments.
I'm experimenting with the homepage.
Let me know what you think. Look in the upper right hand corner under
What's New. I've added a
link to an article or site of interest (e.g., the JFK assassination, my
homage to Margaret Singer). Beneath that is a "Sample the SD" link to one of
the 400+ entries in the Skeptic's Dictionary. I plan to change the links
once or twice a week.
And, sadly we add one more name to the
In Memoriam
file: Margaret Thaler Singer.
Pseudoscience of the week award
Andy Ross turned us on to Computer Clear® from a company in East Sussex,
UK, called
Electronic Healing. Computer Clear is a CD for your personal computer
that has "over 34,000 different homoeopathic type remedies" that it runs
quietly in the background while you compute. Computer Clear is said to be "a
subtle energy balancing software programme" that protects the computer user
from "harmful electromagnetic radiation discharged from your screen and into
your body." Check out their
Kirlian photography "proof" of the healing power of their CD!
Chutzpah of the week award
Somebody is promoting a CD and a book by Joel Engel that teach how to
do graphology at home.
Fair play to them. However, one of the promoters wrote me the following note:
In order to bring the product ... to a wider audience, I would be
grateful if you would post a link to our site on your reputable site.
Of course, if I did, my site would no longer be reputable, but never mind
the minor details.
The author of the not to me said she'd be happy "to reciprocate, and place a link to your
site on ours, if you would like." She requested a copy of my "icon or
logo" and wrote that she was attaching a graphic .jpg file with logo for
my use. (It was actually a .gif file, but no matter.) \She said she was
looking forward to hearing from me. I have no idea why. For the incurably
curious, these efforts may be viewed here.
Gullibility of the week award
Duncan Gill referred us to an article in
The Australian about a man in India who claims he hasn't
eaten or taken a drink in 68 years, a veritable
inediate. Prahlad Jani also claims he hasn't gone
to the bathroom in all those years. The story claims that Mr. Jani
(whose name means Lying Through My Holy Palate) was put under round-the-clock
surveillance at a hospital. Neurologist Sudhir Shah (whose name means
I Am Too Smart to Be Fooled) said Jani was under watch for 10 days with a
closed-circuit camera running and they didn't see him eat or drink anything
or go to the bathroom. The story was sent to The Australian by
"correspondents in Ahmedabad, India" Ahmedabad means City of the Credulous
and is the commercial capital of the western state of Gujarat (which means
Gotcha!). When The Australian was contacted and asked if they had
verified their sources' claims, they replied: "No. Why do you ask? It could
be true, you know." Skeptics accuse Jani of surreptitiously sucking in
prana through his nose ring.
The award must be shared with the
BBC,
CNN, Der
Spiegel,
China Daily, and the Hindustan Times. All report that Jani says he
survives without food or water because of a hole in his palate and that his
followers call him "mataji" or goddess. He also says he has lived in caves
since he was eight, so how he attracted a following is not known, nor is it
clear how a man who lives in caves and doesn't eat grew in size from a child
to an adult as if he were an eater.
reader
comments (11 May 2010):
Dear Sirs,
I am a skeptic and a strong atheist. This
feedback refers to the report on Prahlad Jani. I, too, do not believe such
stories; there are many in India.
What I object to is the language used in the
report. The meaning of names (given in brackets) is wrong and in very bad
taste. There is no need for such ad hominems (if my English is correct).
Given below as the instances:
Mr. Jani (whose name means Lying Through My Holy
Palate): Mr. Jani's first name is Prahlad.
It is the name of one of the greatest devotees of Lord Vishnu in hinduism,
and it does not mean 'Lying Through My Holy Palate'. Prahlad possibly means
'first born'.
Neurologist Sudhir Shah (whose name means I Am
Too Smart to Be Fooled): Sudhir means 'one
of great patience', it does not mean 'I Am Too Smart to Be Fooled'.
Ahmedabad means City of the Credulous:
Ahmedabad was founded in 1411 by Sultan Ahmed Shah and is named after him.
Gujarat (which means Gotcha!):
Gujarat is possibly derived from the name of a hephthalite tribe (White
Huns), whom the Indian chroniclers called 'Gurjaras'. "Chinese chronicles
they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were
known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephthalites)
It is good to be a skeptic, but it is not
good to be a cheap stake skeptic. With regards,
Yours sincerely,
Amar Nath Reu
RTC replies: Thanks for the "corrections." Humor
is a matter of taste. What I find funny, you find insulting. Fair enough.
Making fun of names may be in bad taste, but it is not a logical fallacy (as
the ad hominem
is).
For more on Jani see
Open-mindedness
and Skepticism and
Dr. Sudhir
Shah and Prahlad Jani.
Religion and Medicine
The November 10th cover on Newsweek featured a
woman in hospital garb, hands clasped over her chest, and eyes aimed
heavenward. The focus of the cover story was God & Health - Is Religion
Good Medicine? Why Science is Starting to Believe. Believe what, you
might ask? Newsweek claims there is persuasive evidence that
attending religious services “promotes a longer life.” This claim is
apparently inferred from the fact that, on average, people who attend
religious services live longer than those who don’t, even after controlling
for social support and healthy lifestyle. Although only Christians were in
the study, epidemiologist Lynda Powell thinks the findings “should apply to
any organized religion.” Maybe. But would the findings apply to those of us
who don’t belong to any organized religion? She doesn’t say.
Dr. Richard Sloan of Columbia Presbyterian Medical
Center says that “By suggesting that religious activity promotes health, you
also imply the converse, which is that bad health is associated with
insufficient devotion and insufficient faith.”*
The evidence for that implication is lacking.
Personally, I think the evidence is near zero that such
things as praying or meditating can stop cancer or diabetes, or that praying
for people can have any effect on acute illnesses.
There is evidence that stress hinders recovery from
illness and can negatively affect the immune system. There is also evidence
that a sign of reduced stress is a lower heart rate and lower blood
pressure. Pills can produce this effect. So can meditation, chanting, or
other repetitive muscular activities such as knitting, crocheting and
needlepoint (See the
Relaxation Response at the Mind/Body. Medical Institute at Harvard.)
Even more interesting, I think, is the fact that 70%
of Americans say they pray often for the health of a family member. And 84%
think that praying for the sick improves their chances of recovery. The vast
majority of Americans do not think religion and medicine should be separate.
I am in a minority. I don’t care about my physician’s religious beliefs. I
only care about his or her medical beliefs and abilities. If my physician
asked me if it would be all right if she prayed for me, I’d say, “sure, if it
makes you feel better.” Anyway, it’s never been an issue, not even when I
was admitted to a Catholic hospital for surgery. I vaguely remember the
admissions form having a question about religion or chaplains, and there
being a box for me to indicate ‘none’. Whether anyone prayed for me behind
my back, I can’t say.
Richard Sloan thinks that religion is a private
matter. He doesn’t think it is ever acceptable for doctors to pray with
patients. He says his biggest concerns in this area of religion and health
are “manipulation of religious freedom,” “invasion of privacy,” and “causing
harm.” “It’s bad enough to be sick, it’s worse still to be gravely ill, but
to add to that the burden of remorse and guilt for some supposed failure of
religious devotion is unconscionable.”
I think Sloan is wrong. Even though religion is a
private matter, a significant majority of people practice it publicly and
not just in buildings on days of worship. Religion is a major factor in the
emotional life of many people and therefore can be a significant factor in a
person’s recovery and well being.
I don’t think this is one of those areas where there
should be too many hard and fast rules that cover all situations. There are
bound to be awkward moments. What should an atheist doctor do if a dying
Christian asked him to pray with her? What should a Jewish doctor do if a
Muslim asks her to pray with him? There may be some times when a doctor and
patient know each other well enough for the doctor to ask the patient if
he’d like it if they prayed together. For a doctor to ask a patient who is a
total stranger if he’d like to pray with you, when the patient has given no
indication of any interest in praying, is certainly crossing the line.
While Sloan says he doesn’t answer when asked if he is
a religious person, I think it might be an appropriate question to ask a
patient. If she says no, the physician has no business going there. But if
she says yes, then why not try to discover whether the patient will feel
better if religion is brought into the equation?
My guess is that many physicians get a reputation for
being religious and that is why many people go to them. Personally, if my
surgeon leaned over before surgery and said, “Let’s pray,” I’d be off the
table and out the front door before he could say “Amen.”
Feedback
Tristram Wyatt of the UK writes:
I've not been able to find a debunking of the 'aquaball'
not least because like everything else in the world it includes chemicals
but claims 'no chemicals'. This is in the UK but I imagine it is in the USA
too.
The aquaball, from 21st Century Health Products, makes unsubstantiated
claims similar to dozens of other laundry products. It promises to save you
money, protect the environment, and get your clothes cleaner than
clean by a very scientific sounding process. The aquaball ad says it
cleans by releasing ionised oxygen, which increases the PH level of the
water in your wash and activates the water’s molecules. These then penetrate
deep into the fibres of your clothes lifting dirt away without damaging the
fabrics.
Pretty technical, eh?
The ad goes on to say that you can get 120 washes for £14.95 (that's
about $25 or $0.20 per wash). How good is that?
Anyway, some time ago I wrote
an article in my
Too Good To Be True
pages about these devices. Judging by the picture of the aquaball in the ad,
it is the reincarnation of the CW-10 Laundry Ball. To see pictures of two
dozen of these devices, go to
worldwidescam.com.
On another note, Pete Charlton writes:
I have been reading the Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter for some time. In
general, I enjoy it thoroughly. And I agree with much of the content. I
might be characterized as a practicing but not proselytizing skeptic. There
are two recurring newsletter subjects with which I have some issues. The
"Book": Personally, I feel that the promotion and comment is getting a
little too self-aggrandizing and is more than is necessary. I am happy that
you did the book and will eventually acquire it. I hope it sells well for
you but I don't need to know every breathless thing that is occurring in its
launch and afterlife.
Bright(s): Aligning with or creating a category of advocates some
of which share common thoughts and feelings is a bad move, in my opinion.
Personally, I feel that a true skeptic reads, sees, considers, acts and
responds independently. Aligning with a group may be enjoyable socially and
perhaps beneficial politically, but inevitably those that do must lose some
degree of their independent thought and convictions to join the rest of the
sheep in the flock. I would no more identify myself as a "bright" than I
would as a "liberal" or "conservative" or "wuss" or any other amalgamation.
To do so means that I must inevitably compromise my standards to fit into
the overall thrust of the organization. While it is certainly nice to
associate casually with those who in some degree are in agreement with my
personal view of the world, I would find it difficult to lose my
independence of thought by joining a formal or informal group that had an
agenda. My skepticism of the actions of any group is even more pronounced
than that which I have of individual thoughts of others. This is not to say
that I am a cynic. The cynic is the dark side of a skeptic.
The "Book" Mr. Charlton is referring to is The Skeptic's Dictionary,
which he failed to mention is available at your local bookstore, from
Amazon.com, or from
several other on-line sources. I won't say any more about it except to
mention that it received a very favorable review from Roy Herbert
of
New Scientist.
And this from Barry Karr, Executive Director of CSICOP in response to my
wondering aloud whether CSICOP thought the Albuquerque conference on hoaxes,
myths, and manias was a success:
Just a little note. There were just under 300 people at the CSICOP
conference [in Albuquerque]. And yes, overall, we think it was a great
success. Thank you again for taking part!!
News
It's a pretty sad commentary when we get elated over the fact that a
school board took the courageous step of requiring biology texts to have
biology instead of religion in them but that's what we're doing over the
Texas textbook vote. It's a sad day when scientists are called
dogmatists because they won't allow a dogmatic religion to replace science.
What is really sad is that other states have given in to the
Discovery Institute and their claim
that
intelligent design is a scientific theory and a worthy competitor to
natural selection.
***
I received a call from Kevin Barry, whose production company put together
the Penn & Teller Showtime series Bullsh!t, about being in the second
series. They want me to be in an episode about Christmas. I have no idea
why. They're doing an episode on The Press and I'd much rather be in that
one. If you're wondering why, take a look at one of the 21 files I've posted
under Mass Media Bunk.
They've already included
John Gray in an
episode on True Love. I suppose so they can bash him later in an episode
called BSU (Bullsh!t University), which will be about bogus degrees. Gray
and his ex-wife
Barbara De Angelis, also a relationship guru, got their doctorates from
Columbia Pacific University (CPU), which was
shut
down by California state officials several years ago. CPU “graduated”
over 7,000 students with mail order degrees. “Records showed that most
faculty members who sat on students’ doctoral committees did not have
degrees related to the field of investigation.”*
A judge called it a "giant scam" and a "diploma mill." CPU had been
operating without state approval since June 1997. According to an Associated
Press article in the Sacramento Bee,*
the state had been trying to shut down the school almost from the day it
opened, saying CPU "had virtually no academic standards." Another graduate
of CPU was mentioned in
newsletter 30:
Dr. David R. Hawkins who refers to himself on his web site as "a nationally
renowned psychiatrist, physician, researcher and lecturer." He publishes his
own books from an outfit he calls Veritas Publishing.
Perhaps Penn & Teller will also feature Dr. Francine Shapiro--the creator
of Eye Movement Desensitization
and Reprocessing therapy--whose doctorate came from the now defunct and
never accredited Professional School of Psychological Studies. In any case,
P & T won't be the first to
investigate diploma mills.
In case you're wondering, I got my Ph.D. some time in the last century
from the University of California at San Diego, which, as far as I know is
accredited and still has high academic standards. Don't get me wrong.
I don't think you need a degree to demonstrate your intelligence or your
talent. James Randi is certainly the intellectual equal or superior of most
Ph.D.s I've met. He's certainly my superior. What I don't like are people who call themselves "Doctor" after buying a
degree and then trying to use that degree to give credibility to their
"weird" ideas. On the other hand, there are certainly many people
with "legitimate" PhDs or MDs who are peddling rubbish, but my lawyer
tell us not to mention them by name.
Reflections
The past year has been a very good one for me. I got to meet two of my
heroes, James Randi and Ray Hyman. Even better, I was introduced as a
speaker by each of them: by Randi at the Amazing Meeting in February and by
Ray Hyman at the CSICOP conference in October. In between, The Skeptic's
Dictionary was published. (Sorry, Pete!) But the highlight of the year
for me--as a skeptic--was the few days I spent in Oregon at the
Skeptic's Toolbox. I think my appreciation of this workshop is evident
in my report. This
is a don't-miss-event and will be offered again next August.
Speaking of The Amazing Meeting.
Number II will be held
next month in Las Vegas (Jan. 15-18). I hope to see many of you there. This
event should prove to be very entertaining and enlightening.
|
