I don’t think that giving a description of ‘what skepticism is’ is going to help illuminate someone who is coming to this cold, if only because I don’t think people come to skepticism cold. They come to it gradually, absorbing it piece by piece through a kind of osmosis. Then one day they realise that their vaguely connected interests and questions have led them into a particular area of thought and activism called skepticism, like walking down a cul-de-sac to find a party at the bottom. Then they find they have to put up with people asking them ‘what skepticism is’ and are reduced to writing amateurish blogposts like this one in order to avoid giving an answer…

What I thought I would do instead is go through a selection of some of the books/podcasts/programs that formed my skeptical education – for want of a better term. All of these things opened up my mind in some way, either teaching me something I didn’t know, portraying the things I already knew in a fresh light, or both. They cleared away some of the mental fog that surrounded me, and simultaneously made me realise how much I didn’t know and how much there was to learn. In short, they woke me up a little. I list them here as suggestions for those new to skepticism, in the hope that the effect they had on me may be replicated for them. Even if only one person is inspired, that is still worth the attempt. I’m probably not suggesting anything here most skeptics haven’t already heard of, as I won’t be going far from the beaten track so to speak, but you may get something from my tuppence-worth of thoughts on them regardless. It’s not an exhaustive list, just a list of books I’ve read essentially, and of other things aside from books, too. This is basically my attempt to justify all those hours of my life spent absorbing knowledge that has basically sat in my head all this time with nowhere to go. Validate me, oh wonderful blogosphere!

Books:

The Bible – my first exercise in skepticism, when I wasn’t even aware what it was. You often hear from theists turned atheists that reading the bible from beginning to end with an open and critical mind was the turning point in their journey away from belief. I can completely understand why. Although I have always been atheist, I have also always had an interest in religions themselves, and a few years ago while on hard times and unemployed with lots of spare time I decided to read the Bible right through, in as objective a way as possible. What you get, divorced from the highly selective quotes priests throw out of pulpits like m & ms designed to lead you, ET-like, up the garden path of belief, is a fascinating collection of historical texts from many different periods of time, that give a huge insight into what people have believed in over the years, their intentions and their dreams, their preferred reading materials, their rituals, way of life: everything. It is a great historical compendium. It is also an extremely unpleasant book, filled with the worst kinds of disgusting violence, racial hatred and misogyny, just to list a few of its repellent peccadilloes. However, what you receive overall is a sense of how building a narrow religious worldview around a book such as this is in reality a rather daft and thankless task. You wonder why they bother; but then, maybe the main lesson to be learnt here is that most Christians don’t read the whole Bible. They should, because by doing so, you realise that believing in God isn’t quite the sane idea it may have once seemed. If you read the Bible objectively, it becomes much more difficult to argue the case for God without running into all kinds of complications, some linguistic (we’re talking translations of translations of translations here: of texts written by people who often disagreed with each other in the first place), some historical (it could after all, just be made up: the archaeological evidence is sketchy at best for most biblical events), some rational (donkeys and snakes don’t speak; the Noah’s ark story stretches science into the realm of fantasy), and some philosophical (is God love, or is he an utter bastard?). At the end of the matter, it just boils down to applying your own judgement. You should never beleive in God because of someone else’s interpretation of a book you’ve not fully read or understood. You have to do that yourself. That is Skepticism.

For the record, I skimmed a lot of the prophets, and the psalms. This was for my own sanity. My favourite book of the Bible was Ecclesiastes. You don’t need to know this, but now you do.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. This book is famous more for the responses to it than for anything actually in the book itself. It annoyed a lot of Christians. It probably also annoyed a lot of those ghostwriters for shit celebrity ‘auto’biographies who were kept off the number one spot in the bestseller lists. It could also be argued that it didn’t do any favours for the perception of atheists in the media either, and this could be down to what a lot of people saw as Dawkins’ holier-than-thou tone in the book, sometimes adopted by slavish fans of the book who just want to get one up on the creationists. Dawkins maintains his writing is simply passionate, and that the accusations say more about religion’s easily bruised sense of blasphemy. Anyway, all this would be to miss the point. I read the book to see what all the fuss was about, and it was quite easy to see why it has become such a touchstone book for many atheists. It really is one of the best argued cases against the idea of a God: well constructed, and extremely well-informed and presented. Dawkins knows his stuff, and knows how to write. The tone can occasionally grate, but it’s worth it. Read the Bible and then this and you’ll feel like a professor.

On a side note, I can sometimes get frustrated by what comes across like a skeptical obsession with evolution. It used to seem strange to me that nearly all the science focus in skepticism was around evolution. It’s extremely important, yes, but science is a huge and fascinating arena full of many other ideas we can focus on. The problem is that skepticism hasn’t really had any choice, given the rise of creationism over the last few decades (particularly in America, but also to a lesser extent in Britain). I am frustrated by the impression sometimes given that we are some kind of Darwin cult, but if science education is constantly getting attacked by fundamentalists who object to the theory of evolution because it disagrees with their favourite book, then I’m not sure that skeptics have had much choice other than to go on and on about evolution. We go on about it because there is a genuine attempt to confuse people about what it is, and to damage the education of children. There is a genuine fear that if we don’t do our best to convey why evolution is true then science education will just slide backwards until we’re really in trouble. I wish we could shut up about Darwin for a while, but we can’t.

Anyway, it’s a good book. Unlike ‘The’ Good Book.

Bad Science: this book is simply a great reference tool (aswell as funny). It highlights another area where woolly thinking and credulity can be dangerous, that of public health. The world of medicine is constantly undermined by the halfbaked claims and sometimes outright fraud of people who claim to be offering viable ‘alternatives’. Names such as Patrick Holford, Gillian McKeith and Matthias Rath will no longer sound innocuous after reading this book. This doesn’t mean the book is character assassination. It is never anything but fair and accurate. The book is ruthlessly researched and reasoned, and is simply one of the best books on the subject, if not the best. If you have any doubts about the latest alternative medicine fad, Goldacre is the man to read.

I would add that while in America religious fundamentalism seems to be the bigger threat in society, here in Britain alternative medicine is the more accepted form of muddy thinking and falsehood. This is why the book is important. Both are dangerous in different but no less important ways. This book helps to show how skepticism can be part of a truly righteous fight in the real world, not just a personal exercise in self growth.

Programs/Podcasts:

TED talks. These lectures from the annual Technology, Entertainment and Design conference woke up my science brain. This was before I got into skepticism, but was a major step on my way to that destination. The actual conference itself is something of an elitist and expensive backpatting session for smart people, but the lectures are published online for free, and they are great (but short) lectures by leading figures in many areas of research. For me, they reinvigorated the sheer joy of ideas, and experimentation, and finding out about the world. Sometimes, there just doesn’t seem to be enough of that in our everyday lives: the joy of simply knowing stuff.

There’s not just TED: there are science lectures and programs all over the net. They’re even on tv. Carl Sagan’s lectures are highly regarded, though I have yet to see them myself. These days, most science lectures or programs seem to presented by Brian Cox. He doesn’t sleep, I think.

Skeptoid: the first podcast I ever listened to, and the first self-described skeptical product I ever exposed myself to. Each week, Brian Dunning takes a well researched skeptical look at some aspect of pop phenomena. It could be anything from the city of Atlantis to UFOs. I don’t always agree with his conclusions, but that’s fine, because that’s part of skepticism. The research is always thoroughly done, and the show always interesting. The first episode to really impress me was the one which completely debunked the conspiracy theories surrounding Roswell in New Mexico. There is research in that episode which I have never seen or heard on any other show purporting to get to the facts regarding the Roswell ‘incident’. That fact alone has caused me to never take any statements regarding unusual theories at face value. I will find as much research as possible via my own initiative, striving for objectivity, and keep a closer eye on those who I know are doing the same. The world of UFO research all too often resembles an echoing chamber, in which only a couple of choice selections of data can be heard, rebounding constantly from researcher to researcher… If you’re interested in getting as close as you can to the truth regarding strange claims, then Skeptoid is a great place to start. Websites by lone bigfoot hunters and UFO enthusiasts who only reference those who only reference them, are not… Skeptoid was good for my skeptical side in that I stopped reading a lot of bullshit which was simply wasting my time.

Podcasts are a huge part of organised skepticism. Essentially web-based radio shows, they can be a great disseminator of skeptical material, and can be instrumental in bringing people together. Indeed, a mutual liking for Skeptoid was one of the catalysts which led to the first stirrings of what became the MSS. Two years later and the MSS now has a well established Skeptics in The Pub night every month, two podcasts and an international conference under its belt. The conference was organised in conjunction with the Greater Manchester Skeptics, who formed themselves after seeing what was going on just down the motorway in Liverpool, and who also now have a very well established Skeptics in The Pub night and a podcast. And all in the space of a couple of years. Check out the list on the right hand side of this webpage for a good introductory starting point in skeptical podcasting.

Skeptics in The Pub:

Skeptics in the pub! That great informer, entertainer, friendship creator, skeptical haven and supplier of food and drink. Skeptics in The Pub is one of the great inventions in skepticism. All the other stuff is made up of things you can do on your own, but if you want to meet other self-described skeptics and/or curious people like yourself, SitP nights are the place to go, and they’re all over the place! Go to one near you. You won’t regret it.

This list attempts to cover all the SitP groups of the British Isles. It probably doesn’t, so if anyone knows of any that I’ve missed, please let me know and I’ll include them in the list below. For now, however, this is more than a good start. Most of these groups either have their own website (a quick google should find it), twitter feed or facebook page:

Aberdeen, Aberystwyth, Bath, Belfast, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Cardiff, Cork, Cheltenham, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Guildford, Hampshire, Kent, Lancaster, Leeds, Leicester, Lewes, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, The Peak District, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Reading, St Andrews, Sheffield, Swansea, Westminster and Winchester.

Aswell as SitP, there are also various other skeptical organisations, such as Grassroots Skeptics and Ladies Who Do Skepticism, plus other similar groups outside the skeptical umbrella that do the same kind of thing, such as Cafe Scientifique and SciBar. Whatever it is you want in a skeptical community, it is out there waiting for you.

So, what are you waiting for?

Derren Brown – beardy mind-meddler and generally top fella – investigates those who claim to have psychic powers… starting with my old mate Joe Power. I’ll come to Joe in a moment (we’ve a bit of a history), but first I’d like to say well done to Derren. I remember after his ‘Messiah’ show, it looked like he was heading into a more publicly skeptical position. While that hasn’t happened quite as far as we’d have liked (the lottery show for example), this latest show, coupled with his role in ‘Science of Scams’ suggests that skepticism is something Derren’s focusing on a little more. If that’s the case, this is excellent news – where Randi has been a major figurehead for decades (possibly even centuries, he seems to always have existed), he needs somebody to help shoulder the weight and take up the slack. With his public persona, showmanship, reputation and expertise, I really think Derren can play that role, should he desire to.

One person who certainly can’t play that role, is Mr Joe Power. For those of you not aware, Joe and the Merseyside Skeptics Society (and myself in particular) have something of a past – in fact, long before the 10:23 Campaign, taking on Joe Power was one of the first pieces of skeptical activism I got involved in. Having criticised his appearance in a local paper, blindly promoting him as ‘The Man Who Sees Dead People’, I decided to meet Joe Power at his Liverpool book signing, and invited him to take the million dollar challenge. What I got wasn’t polite declination, but bizarre insults – with Joe genuinely comparing all skeptics to paedophiles. You can read the whole account here, and I recommend you do, to really get a feel for the kind of man Joe Power is. It was during this conversation that I heard Joe had been investigated for a prominent TV show, and at the time I put two and two together and predicted it was Derren Brown who he was referring to.

I can’t wait to see the show on May 10th.

Your New Facebook Profile Photo

With the coming of a very low-key, very gentle pro-atheism awareness campaign on facebook in ‘A’ week (http://www.aweekonfacebook.com/, Facebook event, #aweek Twittertag ), I’ve been reminded of the hesitation that many atheists feel towards the promotion of atheism in any way. Talking about any type of promotion or advocacy in favour of atheism as annoying because “this is the sort of thing that X-, Y- or Z-ians/-ists/ers do” may not be exactly how the majority of atheists feel, but I’d say, and only from my own feeling (not very skeptical, but still), that a large majority of atheists either couldn’t care less in trying to spread ideas and grow our mostly merry, but sometimes quite grumpy band of disbelievers, or are very uncomfortable with the thought of trying to actively or passively win people over to the idea that, maybe, they should give up the idea of an invisible Daddy In The Sky who grants wishes a little less frequently than you see the evil evidence of His Divine, or more humanly – if not humanely – divined, Will

But when you see the damage that religion does, and the toxic effect that a supreme, unquestionable authority and unquestioned afterlife can bring – from the banality and stupidity of the penny candle, crap wine and drain-filtering devices (pieces of The Christ’s Holy, suspiciously bread-like, Flesh must be saved from the insult of the sewers) of Catholicism (though after 2000 years on a bread and wine diet, I’m certain Jesus could make excellent use of modern facilities) to the horrendous tradition of wife-burning in Hindu ‘Sati’, thankfully both illegal and much reduced in modern India, or the unholy union of extreme Christianity in demonising a contraceptive layer of latex that could do so much to help the AIDS crisis – doesn’t this, shouldn’t this drive anyone with a rational bent and compassion for humanity towards doing what we can to reduce the influence of The Beast, even to simply kick the giant’s toe?

I can understand that being an atheist-in-practise and technical agnostic in a theist or desperately-wanting-to-believe world soaked in a steady stream of pap-filled, infuriating pamphlets, preaching and priests can be a frustrating existence, but to turn around from this and in that frustration deny to rationalism in general, or your rationalism in particular, the weapons of the battleground of ideas, the modern tools of marketing and persuasion, and give all the ground to fight for over to theists is to stop kicking the giant’s toe and take a gun to your own.

The argument that people should be left alone to find their own path, free to decide without coercion is, firstly, to deny that massive pro-theist coercion is out there, all day every day, not to fight against that tide is to resign the game. Secondly, it strikes of a high-handedness that’s quite prevalent in Buddhism, in my opinion, but without the necessary element in Buddhism of what is called ‘skilful means’, the art of manipulation over the long-term…

It’s with this in mind that I offer you, gentle reader, this parody of a pretty famous anecdote in the world of Zen:

A: Tell me, B, of this Atheism, this acceptance of the overwhelming probability that there is no supreme creator, no divinely-ordained purpose to the existence of every particle and person, no will to bend our souls to…

B: I know not of this Atheism. I cannot breathe of what I accept as truth, for this will inevitably influence your biases towards what would be your own internal outcomes… Yay, I decry the Dawkins and the Sagans of this world for their petty, insolent meddling in the minds of others. There should be those things left to monks and priests and dress-wearing men of every shade or stripe, every colour and complexion. We, WE have a very, VERY high horse upon which we sit and cannot be seen to enter into the arena of ideas with those of such trivial notions of idealistic fancy. Truly, it is a shame we cannot live without air and alimentation, for the foul believers indulge in these earthly, despoiling pursuits also.

A: But B! I’ve seen you chuckle at the Holy Men! I’ve seen you! You mock them! You do not go to the temples as other men, you prefer to sit with Dostoevsky, or a little light Kafka splayed upon your lap! Tell me! Show me the way that you take!

B: I cannot behave as the priests do. They take your hunger and feed you themselves… I leave you to feast upon yourself. Let your chips fall where they may.

A: Please! I beseech you! In the name of Pedagogy!

B: No.

A: An idea! A sign! A Symbol! Anything!!!

B: Have you finished your porridge?

A: I have. I HAVE!

B: Then wash your bowl.

–

Easter is based on a beautiful, empirical, scientific scheme – The first Sunday after the full moon (The Paschal Moon) following the Vernal Equinox – and is a picture of the lack of divine influence in the universe. Why not take this event, this year as the chance to express to the people who know you, the people who may be vulnerable at the moment, to say to the people who may be tempted (link NSFW: Swearing) to celebrate the death and resurrection of a Jewish Carpenter by telling children that a giant bunny left chocolate eggs in the night, to tell the people who will be influenced to even a tiny degree by your choices that you choose reason, you choose a life without a manic-depressive divinity pouring over every detail of you life – especially your sex life and pig-eating habits – and that you openly, unashamedly, staunchly reject giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.

Don’t get me started on Santa.

Come on!

Go get the A.

Upload and set it to your profile picture.

Post a status update: “rejects giant bunny rabbits with the lock-picking skills of a cat burglar bringing chocolate eggs to the bedrooms of our children in the night.” (or something similar)

Tweet your support!

These are just a few of the nonsense ‘facts’ ascribed to martial-arts yeti Chuck Norris that fly about the internet. Fortunately for him, none of them touch on his acting ability. If you listened to our podcast, Skeptics With a K, yesterday, you will have heard Mike ‘The Health Ranger’ Adams’ completely un-ironic list of facts about Skeptics. You know the score:  Skeptics don’t believe in anything, we work for Big Pharma, kill babies, that kind of thing… So for this week’s Question of the Week, we thought he’d give a Chuck Norris inspired response to Adams’ drivel.

The Question of The Week is this: What kind of Chuck Norris style nonsense facts can you ascribe to Skeptics that Mike Adams missed?

The funniest answer won’t recieve anything except our undying admiration, but if that’s good enough for Chuck Norris then it’s good enough for us!

When: Thu, Feb 18, 2010 8.00 – 11.00 PM
Where: The Vines (aka the Big House), 81 Lime Street, Liverpool

Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances our booked guest speaker Andy Lewis is unable to make this event. However, all is not lost – in honour of the first anniversary of the Merseyside Skeptics Society we’ve decided to replace Andy’s talk with a number of short talks on a variety of topics:

• Emotional Freedom Technique, by Allan Callister – a look at the latest craze for face-tapping therapy
• Bad Logic, Mike Hall – examining logical failures, with examples from the world of religion
• PR and the Media, Michael Marshall – how PR gained control of journalism, and where we go from here
• How Science Works, Tom Williamson – what is science, how do we do it and how do we know it works?

Plus, a live recording of the Skeptics with a K show.

Andy Lewis developed the web site quackometer.net that explores the pseudo-medical claims of alternative medicine web sites and their impact on society. Despite his detractors claims, he does not own a yacht in the South of France paid for by Big Pharma. He has yet to secure a single penny from such sources for his work.

• RSVP on Facebook »
• RSVP via Email »

Ahem.

If you read this blog, then you most likely consider yourself a person of the Skeptical persuasion. Objectivity and critical thinking are your cornerstones. Unfounded beliefs and woo of all kinds do not penetrate your hardened Skeptical exterior as you stride across the globe unearthing logical fallacies… Or something along those lines. At the very least, you will probably consider youself a rational thinker who wouldn’t be caught dead believing something silly.

However, the same might not be true of your family; and while you can choose your beliefs, you can’t choose your family. As much as you may like to think you are safely cocooned from all the woo and guff out there by the warm fires of the Skeptical community, we all have to interact on a daily basis with those close to us who may have beliefs which are – let’s put this delicately - a bit distanced from our own.

So, this week’s question of this week is this:

What woo does your family believe in? Are there any strange beliefs or ideas held by those close to you which raise the hairs on your hardened Skeptical hide? How do you deal with it: do you confront it head on, or do you ignore it for fear of upsetting family harmony?

Don’t worry, you can change names if you wish; the last thing we want is to have any Skeptics disowned by their parents due to comments they’ve written on this site!

So, don’t be afraid: What woo does your family believe in? Please leave a reply in the comments box below.

by Simon Singh

When: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 6:30 – 8:30 PM
Where: The Vines (aka The Big House), 81 Lime Street, Liverpool, L1 1JQ

Summary

Prince Charles is a staunch defender and millions of people swear by it; most UK doctors consider it to be little more than superstition and a waste of money. But how do you know which treatments really heal and which are potentially harmful? Simon Singh and his co-author Professor Edzard Ernst investigated the evidence for and against alternative therapies and published their conclusions in “Trick or Treatment?”, an honest, impartial and hard-hitting examination and judgement of more than 30 of the most popular treatments. Singh, who has also authored “Fermat’s Last Theorem” and “Big Bang”, will discuss how and why he got involved in writing about alternative medicine. In particular, he will discuss the origins, philosophy and testing of acupuncture and homeopathy, two of the most popular forms of alternative medicine. Singh, who is currently being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association, will also comment on his ongoing legal battle and the impact of libel laws on scientific journalism.

Biography

After completing a PhD in particle physics, Simon Singh MBE joined the BBC and worked as a director and producer on programmes such as Tomorrow’s World and Horizon. He has also presented programmes on Radio 4, BBC4 and Channel 4. He is best known as the author of Fermat’s Last Theorem, The Code Book, Big Bang and Trick or Treatment?.

• RSVP on Facebook »
• RSVP via Email »
• Download the Poster (PDF; 365KB) »

People go about their daily lives making decisions on the basis of beliefs about the way the world works. Their epistemological framework is a complex architecture of foundations and interconnecting supports on which rest concepts held to be “true”. While some beliefs may have little consequence for the person holding that belief, others have the potential to seriously impact the lives of both the believer and, through the actions that those beliefs precipitate, the rest of mankind. When we come to examine issues of such magnitude, we see a difference between the beliefs held by the general public and those which are held by the majority of experts in the respective fields. To understand why this is the case, it is informative to consider two claims that have been made in recent years and the variation in the reception that each has received from the public. 

Claim 1: “The measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism”

The origin of this claim has been buried under the weight of subsequent newspaper stories which have clouded the issue. In 1998, an article entitled “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” was published in The Lancet. This snappily-titled paper, without providing anything beyond circumstantial evidence, suggested that research should be carried out to investigate a causal link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Parents of the 12 children involved in the study blamed the vaccine for the development of the pathology on the basis that the onset of symptoms occurred soon after vaccination. Dr Andrew Wakefield, the lead author of the paper, urged caution in the use of the MMR vaccine and recommended that single vaccines for each of the three diseases be used until further research had been carried out, a recommendation not supported by his own paper.

It came to light later that Dr Wakefield had received considerable funding from lawyers seeking evidence against vaccine manufacturers and that he had attempted to take out a patent on a vaccine that would be a rival to MMR. These conflicts of interest were not declared at the time of publication of the paper though they would have formed part of the basis for an editorial decision on its suitability for publication. After the media coverage, the percentage of children being vaccinated at the appropriate time dropped year-on-year from 92% in 1995 to 80% in 2003 before gradually climbing back to 85% in 2007. MMR uptake has never reached the 95% threshold suggested by the World Health Organisation to provide herd immunity for the population. Measles infections increased to the point at which in 2008, for the first time in 14 years, measles was declared endemic in Britain (i.e. the disease is self-sustaining). More than two-thirds of all mumps infections recorded between 1996 and 2008 (43,378 out of 64,168) occurred during 2005.

Claim 2: “Anthropogenic factors cause global warming”

That the climate is warming is now beyond doubt. The causes of this current phase of environmental change are extremely complex, though strong evidence exists for a link between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and the rise in temperature. Subsequent work has implicated a range of other factors including aerosols, methane, albedo effects and fluctuations in solar radiation as contributing to the observed pattern. Climate projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4°C by the year 2100 depending on sociopolitical factors.

It is difficult to overstate the strength of the consensus on climate change science. A staggering list of bodies of professional scientists have issued explicit statements confirming their support for the views that (i) unequivocal warming of the climate is occurring, and (ii) the majority of this warming is anthropogenic in nature. The number of scientific papers confirming these findings provides an intimidating prospect for would-be students in the area. However, despite this there is still a substantial portion of the general public holding the belief that the current phase of warming is due solely to “natural causes”.

Public reception

Here we have two claims: the first published by a scientist possessing a strong agenda and with almost no evidence that was followed by a sound debunking from the scientific community (notably in the same issue of The Lancet as Wakefield et al.’s original paper), and the second with mountains of evidence and a minuscule number of qualified dissenters. It is possible to quantify the difference in beliefs held by the public relative to the scientific establishment in each case. The wording of the IPCC shows at least 90% certainty in their statement that environmental warming is anthropogenic in origin. This is in contrast to a 2008 Gallup poll which found that only 58% of the public believed that “human activities” caused “increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century”. In the case of MMR, a poll carried out by the Florida Institute of Technology found that 24% of respondents believed that “because vaccines may cause autism it was safer not to have children vaccinated at all”, with a further 19% “not sure”7. This is compared to a scientific community that can be assumed to be unanimous in its non-belief in a link between vaccination and autism, given the complete absence of data supporting that link8.

The role of scepticism

Scepticism should be a tool through which we view the world but it is important to be pragmatic in our use of this tool. The most extreme form of scepticism simply plants the practitioner in an epistemological quagmire where all interpretations of observable data must be made individually by that person. Clearly this is not a practical application of the principle. Instead it is obvious that we must occasionally take the interpretations and opinions of others as a basis for our own epistemological framework. While this seems reasonable it also means that the truth of our own beliefs hinges on the choice of whom to trust. Two recent sociological changes have occurred which have made this decision more complex.

The first is that the popular media moderates what the public hears, collectively acting as a filter by which only the most sensational opinions are broadcast. The shift in purpose that has gone on in the media from informing its audience to entertaining its audience brought with it the drive to find those fringe elders who will retain the semblance of authority but generate maximum audience figures. Dr Andrew Wakefield and Dr David Bellamy (a notable climate change sceptic who once described global warming as “poppycock”) are “men-in-white-coats” wheeled out to drive up audiences regardless of the resulting decline in the level of scientific understanding of that audience.

The second sociological change is the “celebrity culture” in which we now live. This has made it possible for ignorant members of the public to hold forth on important issues and garner great followings in the process. Jenny McCarthy, a C-list actress, is the figurehead of the anti-vaccine movement; Oprah Winfrey, the world’s wealthiest woman, has advocated a range of questionable health treatments; the late author Michael Crichton was a renowned climate change sceptic. Such characters are given airtime and column inches in abundance to espouse their views, regardless of how accurate those views are.

Intellectual laziness is also an important issue. While I have already stated that listening to a certain amount of expert opinion is a necessary epistemological concession, the most pressing issues (particularly those with potentially life-threatening consequences) require that the general public delve deeper themselves. Data that can be used to investigate either of the issues outlined in this essay are readily available to any interested parties. The Mauna Loa Observatory’s carbon dioxide monitoring data can be downloaded, as can the UK Meteorological Office’s climate data. The Health Protection Agency has data on cases of measles, mumps and rubella, as well as vaccine coverage, to emphasise the importance of vaccination compliance. Anybody investigating the MMR issue could even read the following sentence in the Wakefield et al. paper from The Lancet:

“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described”

Conclusion

The gulf between public opinion and scientific consensus is due to the general public not knowing whom to trust and when. The decision of when to resort to expert opinion and then which sources to use in gathering information is a complex matter and there is an element of trust that needs to be exercised. Greater efforts need to be made to ensure that those involved in the media reporting of these kinds of issues are held to account for the abuse of the confidence that the public places in them. In addition to being misleading, such reporting can also endanger lives. Science is a fascinating topic in the hands of a skilled journalist and does not need the kind of selective, sensationalist reporting that is so prevalent today.

When dealing with woo the most profitable tactic is usually simply to expose their quackery by taking apart their arguments. Very few woo-ers have anything more than thin reasoning behind their beliefs; often just enough pseudoscientific babble to provide a veneer of respectability for what is clearly nonsense. However, Creationism is one area in which a substantial publishing industry has grown up around the defence of the topic such that the average Creationist can bury you in books in response to questions. Also, a relatively large number of people are interested in finding a way to harmonise theories of biological origins with theological concepts (principally the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions). Thus we have two potential strategies that have emerged from the fray: confrontationalism and accommodationism. It will soon become clear to which camp I belong…

Accommodationism

This school of thought has a long and distinguished history in the sciences. The earliest scientific researchers, including Newton and Gallileo, were not known as scientists but “natural philosophers” and they worked not to better understand the world but to better understand the glory of the divine creation. Even as the state of our knowledge has explained more and more phenomena without the need to refer to a deity, pushing Him/Her into the farthest reaches of cosmology/metaphysics, some scientists and philosophers maintain their desire to see this trend cease.

Arguments for accommodationism tend to fall into three categories:

NOMA – The first, most notable because it has a famous proponent in Stephen Jay Gould, is that science in general is incapable of making any kind of statement concerning a God. Gould, in his book Rocks of Ages, coined the phrase “non-overlapping magesteria” (since abbreviated to NOMA) for the concept of science and religion being two discrete fields with no interaction. The NOMA principle is defined thus:

“The magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap…”

Some have taken Gould’s concept of NOMA and applied it to Creationism, as a theological concept, asserting that science cannot comment on the religious nature of the belief. Clearly this is nonsense, since all of Creationism is geared around explaining scientific phenomena.

Epistemology – The second argument for accommodationism is that science cannot know everything and that this incomplete knowledge leaves room for God to survive. While inherently true in epistemological terms, this argument is a fairly extreme rearguard action. Once more we find God hiding in cosmological theories or vaguely postulated to be holding the universe together in some invisible way. Again, however, this argument does not hold a lot of water as the theory of Creationism lies within the relatively well-understood field of biology.

Diplomacy – The final argument for accommodationism should not really be an argument at all and is one of the primary reasons for extensive criticism of the position. Accommodationists see themselves as diplomats, attempting to build bridges between the atheist scientists and the theists. Every time a scientific theory attempts to chip away at the concept of a God, claim the accommodationists, we alienate the vast majority of people who believe in that God. We don’t want to go upsetting people do we? And what happens when we want to ensure that theists are on our side when we apply for greater science funding or the exclusion of explicit discussion of theological concepts in science classes? If we all place nice and don’t make a fuss then everything will be alright…

This is a lovely ideal. However, it involves what too many scientists perceive as intellectual dishonesty. That we should be prevented from sharing our ideas, knowledge and data with a populace that doesn’t want to hear it for fear that they should throw their toys out of the pram is not a good reason to accommodate them. Even worse the insinuation is that scientists and science education are at the mercy, via the democratic system, of a theologically-minded public that would rather see less science (which is providing cures for disease and heating for their homes) than be provided with evidence against their religious beliefs. No scientist should be gagged in this way.

Confrontationlism

As well as the library of books is the vast number of pithy little questions or statements that creationists are taught to ask those who question them in order to throw their opponents off balance. While some are ridiculous:

• If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
• My grandpa wasn’t a monkey was yours?
• Were you there?
• Evolution is the theoretical basis for Communism

Indeed, some Creationist arguments are so ridiculous that Creationists have actually had to begin policing their own numbers and have released a list of arguments that should not be used. Clearly these arguments should be answered bluntly and with little regard for NOMA. But why stop there…? More sophisticated arguments also abound and these may appear to be reasonable at first glance:

• Mitchondrial Eve lived 6,000 years ago, thereby proving a Young Earth
• The bacterial flagellum could not have evolved gradually
• Snails that were caught a few days prior to examination were found to be thousands of years old using carbon dating

A favourite strategy of the Creationist Duane Gish is to cite a long list of these sorts of semi-technical statements in debates. They are all very easy to state but extremely complex to rebut, leaving his opponent labouring through science while he appears to win using nothing but rhetoric. The technique has been named the “Gish Gallop” in his honour. However, such arguments have no more basis in science than those ridiculous statements and questions listed earlier.

There are also three main arguments for the confrontationist view:

Honesty – If we are to hold back our theories, data and ideas from the general public then what is the point in our being scientists? The idea of not telling people something because it might upset them is simply patronising. If a major religion rejected the germ theory of disease (which most of them have every right to, since it is not mentioned in any holy books) then it would not be a reasonable course of action to withhold antibiotics from the adherents of that religion. Why is evolution any different?

Epistemology – It is generally held in the evolution/Creationism debate that the science is in favour of evolution. This is the view of the scientific community (as evidence by the tongue-in-cheek Project Steve, ironically named after accommodationist Stephen Jay Gould) based on the available evidence. To say that that there are multiple, varying interpretations of the same data that are all equally valid (as some would argue) is to descend into relativism. The job of science is to select the model which best fits the data and in this case it is evolution by a country mile. The current favourite piece of rhetoric from Answers in Genesis (a leading young earth creationism group based in the USA) runs like this:

“Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts… The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions” - Ken Ham

Suddenly we are deep into relativism and philosophy of science. But hold on… Surely the only people who have actually stated their presuppositions are the Creationists?

“By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record” – Source: Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith

Those scientists who originally formulated the theory of evolution were actually theists (including Darwin himself, who at one stage began training to become an Anglican parson) and therefore had exactly the same preconceptions as those who now deny evolution.

Education – The media furore concerning the teaching of evolution, creationism and intelligent design in classrooms highlights the need for the scientific community (i.e. the ones who are best placed to comment on the current state of knowledge) to become more deeply involved in communicating to the public. Entirely aside from the fact that we should aim to give children the best education we can, presenting the current state of our knowledge. Teaching anything else is irresponsible. Where once the “men-in-white-coats” were esteemed for their erudition and listened to for their opinions, now they are regarded as being figures of suspicion. Their views are listened to when they say things the public wants to hear or doesn’t care about, but no more than the average celebrity.

Conclusion

In a lot of cases, woo should be counteracted with logic, science and common sense. However, some would hold that Creationism is different because of its religious connotations and, therefore, should be afforded a modicum of respect. Bollocks. Where Creationism strays into testable hypotheses and starts attempting to provide more than simply “Goddidit”, where religious ideas attempt to clothe themselves in the garb of science, they leave themselves open to the brutality that is scientific criticism. Confrontation is the route to minimising the damage caused by woo and Creationism should be treated no differently.

Non-miraculous Dermatographic Urticaria, or 'skin writing'

There are few things more fun than when two classic pseudoscience memes clash. It’s a little game you can play, like a form of skeptic snap. Psychic healing? Sure. Astrology meets homeopathy? Why not.  Baffled doctors meets religious apparition? Of course. Which brings us neatly to a recent news story which featured, erm, well – baffled doctors and religious apparitions. Which explains my introduction, obviously.

The particular doctor-baffler in question is young Ali Yakubov, a new-born from the Republic of Dagestan – a small republic bordering Georgia and Azerbaijan. And the religious apparition? The mystrious and sudden appearance of passages from the Koran on his skin. Apparently, the parents of nine-month-old were stunned when the word ‘Allah’ appeared on his chin soon after his birth. So stunned, in fact, that they didn’t tell anyone about the signs from the almighty one. At least, at first. But when the writings appeared on a more regular basis, coming and fading a few times a week, culminating in the direct order to ’Show these signs to people’, the parents took action and immediately announced their little miracle to the world. And of course they had documented proof that the signs were heavenly, and they did some very simple tests to prove that the messages were appearing without human intervention – for example, by having a camera set up to watch their child 24/7 and see that nobody was leaving the amazing marks on his skin. Something simple as that. You know, actual proof.

Oh, no, that’s right – they did none of that. Their proof was, in fact, the rather helpful assurance that, as the young boy’s mother pointed out, Ali was a second child, and this never happened with his older sister. I see. She also stated:

“Normally those signs appear twice a week – on Mondays and on the nights between Thursdays and Fridays. Ali always feels bad when it is happening. He cries and his temperature goes up. It’s impossible to hold him when it’s happening, his body is actively moving, so we put him into his cradle. It’s so hard to watch him suffering.”

Which is a phenomenal standard of evidence at play there, I’m sure you’ll agree. Still, it’s enough for the boy to be touted as genuine, and enough for him to become a focus of religious attention in his home province, which has become something of a Mecca to Muslims (I’m so sorry, I always wanted to crowbar that gag in somewhere).

Local MP Akhmedpasha Amiralaev said of young Ali:

“This boy is a pure sign of God. Allah sent him to Dagestan in order to stop revolts and tension in our republic.”

However, despite headlines of the usual ‘Doctors baffled’ ilk, not everyone buys into the miraculous nature of the phenomenon. In fact, Ludmila Luss, a local doctor, believes that the story with the inscriptions is masterminded by the boy’s parents, telling a local paper:

“They might have treated his skin with irritants, such as pepper and salt, or medications, which trigger skin inflammation and leave red traces in the shape of Arabic characters”

The parents may not have used any substances or medications if the child suffers from urticarial dermographism, also known as ‘skin writing’ – a skin disorder that occurs with five percent of the nation’s population. It is one of the most common types of urticaria, in which the skin becomes raised and inflamed when stroked or rubbed with a dull object. Therefore, if the child has such a disorder, writing anything on his skin would be entirely simple. She added:

“Some people suffering from gastric pathologies have extremely sensitive skin. If you draw something on their skin with a little stick, for example, the drawing will later appear”

Despite the clear medical explanation, clergy of the Northern Caucasus do not doubt that the boy is a divine phenomenon.

So, divine intervention or boy with skin disorder and adults in his life who’d like to use his skin disorder in order to get a bit of media attention? What does your skeptic sense tell you…?