Pseudoscience

[Galapagos]

I was only able to see the first 4 minutes of the 1st part. It locks up for some reason.

 

I'm not sure if it's explained later in the film, but some of the products they were showing as "dragons" didn't make any sense. For example, how is organic ketchup a "dragon?

 

Later on he states that he isn't making any claims about the validity of the products under discussion, only that there isn't any scientific data supporting their purported effects.

If I understood correctly, then his point was that there is no empirical reason to believe organic ketchup is any better for you than other kinds of ketchup.

[freeztar]

Later on he states that he isn't making any claims about the validity of the products under discussion, only that there isn't any scientific data supporting their purported effects.

If I understood correctly, then his point was that there is no empirical reason to believe organic ketchup is any better for you than other kinds of ketchup.

 

If the organic ketchup bottle is making the claim that it is better for you than regular ketchup, then he might have a point. But, we know that pesticides are bad for the body. We know that organic food is grown without pesticides. So it stands to reason that organic ketchup would be better for your health (at least in that aspect, it might have twice the sugar or whatever for all I know).

 

Another product shown was St. John's Wort, which most people take for depression. This has been scientifically confirmed:

 

The chemical composition of St. John's wort has been well-studied. Documented pharmacological activities, including antidepressant, antiviral, and antibacterial effects, provide supporting evidence for several of the traditional uses stated for St John's wort...Evidence from randomised controlled trials has confirmed the efficacy of St John's wort extracts over placebo in the treatment of mild-to-moderately severe depression. Other randomised controlled studies have provided some evidence that St John's wort extracts are as effective as some standard antidepressants in mild-to-moderate depression.

St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) : a review of its chemistry, pharmacology and clinical properties

 

This leads me to the conclusion that the makers of the film are either unaware of such supporting knowledge or, worse, have a bias towards any form of alternative medicine. Just because health food stores carry some whacky pseudoscience stuff does not mean that it is all pseudoscientific.

[Galapagos]

...

This leads me to the conclusion that the makers of the film are either unaware of such supporting knowledge or, worse, have a bias towards any form of alternative medicine. Just because health food stores carry some whacky pseudoscience stuff does not mean that it is all pseudoscientific.

 

Yes, there appears to be some confusion about some of the other items in the first part(omega 3 fatty acids) on the youtube comments section as well.

I also perused the article posted and more I found referenced on the St. Johns Wort wiki page and it would appear that it is valid for medical use.

I suppose I will retract my recommendation of the video(or at least caution viewers), but kind of strange, the rest of it is quite good! :confused:

 

 

Edit*******- I just went to Dunning's website(http://www.skeptoid.com) and performed a few searches. Firstly, he states in a podcast that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial supplements, but that pseudoscientific claims beyond the legitimate medical ones are often made:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4114

Fish oil is a great source of omega-3 fatty acids, and these have been shown many times to have certain cardiovascular benefits. The American Heart Association recommends that you eat fish at least twice a week.

 

Where the pseudoscience invades is in the area of supplementation — basically fish oil pills. Generally speaking, healthy people gain no benefit from supplementation; taking pills when you don't need them amounts to what doctors call a "wallet extraction". However when you do have documented coronary heart disease or otherwise need to lower your triglycerides, your doctor may well recommend that you take supplements, along with whatever fish you might already eat, to reach a desired amount of daily intake, usually between 1000 and 4000 mg depending on your condition. Omega-3 fatty acids do carry risks such as blood thinning, so don't take it if you don't need it. Bottom line: If you're healthy, save your money, and enjoy a fish dinner now and then.

 

Omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil are often trumpeted as treatments for many other conditions, such as asthma, cancer, or as some kind of wonder food for the brain, but such claims as these have so far been found to be completely without merit.

 

Perhaps the reference to St. John's Wort is the same in that there was a valid point, but it was not made clear. There is also a shot of a yoga parlor, which might be confusing because isometric hold exercises surely burn calories and are good for you, but there are a lot of other mystical and pseudoscientific claims made about it.

 

As for the organic foods, I searched and found his position in another podcast transcription:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019#

The National Review reports that Americans believe organic food is healthier by a 2-1 margin, despite the lack of any evidence supporting this. When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture. A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis.

 

Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Supporters of organics claim that the much larger amounts of chemicals they use is OK because those chemicals are all-natural. But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe or healthy — consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). When you hear any product claim to be healthy because its ingredients are all natural, be skeptical. By no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is healthful.

 

After looking through his site, I'm willing to give Dunning the benefit of the doubt and tentatively conclude that the problem with the video was clarity and not accuracy or bias.

[freeztar]

I recommend Richard Dawkin's "Enemies of Reason" series for an interesting look into lots of different pseudoscience.

 

Enemies of Reason http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOmMdnO4qE4&feature=related

[CraigD]

Also, would anybody like to tackle the question of how we can recognize pseudoscience when we encounter it in everyday life? In other words, what are the everyday solutions to an everyday problem?

My favorite is a collection of “tools” known as the “baloney detection kit”, taken and slightly adapted from a chapter of Carl Sagan’s 1995 book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”. They’re few, short, obvious and common-sensical, and like any collection of tools, not guaranteed to assure infallible success, but a good foundation.

[lemit]

CraigD:

 

Very good citation from a very good book I'd forgotten I'd read. Thanks for the reminder.

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

Organics is not pseudo science they Just haven't got the PR resources of Multinationals.

A lot of science is psudoscience and managed by press release. How often do you see"new discovery revolutionises- - - -"with a sub text of in 5-10 years if you give me lots more funding

 

The company making the swine flu anti-viral is the company testing it.

 

On agricultural chemicals

On chemicals I think a distinction can be made for what I would like to call "plastic-man-made" chemicals and 'everyday' ones.

My plastic-man-made chemicals differ from your everyday chemical in that they are

1. Made by man, not naturally occurring.

2. Do not break down readily. Some with half lives of 10-20+ years.

3. Are foreigners to the food chain with not completely understood effects and affects.

4. No "wee beastie" has worked out how to degrade, disassemble or eat them yet.

5. Are relative recent visitors to the planet The last 50-100 years say.

The issues are:-

1. does the new man made chemical degrade? What is its half life? Does it break down into something more poisonous? (as does DDT to DDE)

2. Does it bio-accumulate?

3. Do we know its long term effects on the mammals at the top of the food chain (Eg extinction of mothering instinct with Californian seals).

5 What diseases eg tetrogenic, cancer, brain, obesity might it case because of its accumulation and long half life and ability to disperse thought the entire planet not just your cabbage.

6. What are its effects/affects in the ecosystem and to wildlife such as frogs, birds etc.

7. is there a better way?

 

There are plenty of pest control methods that don't involve sprays

Plenty of sprays that degrade within a few days. This is the beauty of organic sprays. Sure you MAY have to spray more often but at least is does degrade The DDT put on my grandfather by the Army in 1944 is still wandering about the planet, some as the more toxic DDE.

 

Starting in the 1900s and really getting into swing with WW2 chemists started making a new class of chemicals. Chemicals that the Earth had never seen before. These are the chemicals that worry me and worried Rachel Carson when she invented "ecology" and the "environment" movement single-handedly with her book Silent Spring Rachel Carson was literate, and a good communicator-rare in a scientist- and a well educated biologist.

She was actively, under-handily, undermined by chemical companies in her day, and she is still being pilloried by many chemical multi-nationals even now who want to re-write history.

Many of the chemicals she talked about have been banned but many are still with us. Some literally in the bodies of mammals. Some, now being re-branded sold as cures for malaria or whatever.

 

With the way mass media is controlled by just a few companies, counting their pennies; multinationals are finding it even easier to get their point of view across; even to the extent of filming segments for the nightly news. Many have better equipped and resourced media departments than large national Television Stations. Exxon, for example, makes about $US40+ Billion a year, a lot more than any media conglomerate- even Fox.

 

 

 

The over use of Chemicals a is also an issue. "bugs are bad" is the mantra of so many TV adds.

EG#1

China’s annual production capacity of Glyphosate iis estimated at between 500,000 tonnes and 600,000 tonnes. Fortunately, Glyphosate is is not as toxic as most, although we did lose a lot of frogs with its surfactant, and some studies are coming out now that are worrying.

Monsanto's whole GM business is predicated on Glyphosate being harmless. It is the cornerstone of the company's biotechnology/engineering programme. So it will be a long time before adverse (pseudoscience?) reports see the light of day..

 

EG#2

Americans spend over $1 billion and apply over 70 million pounds of pesticides to suburban lawns-alone- each year, making storm-water runoff a leading source of water pollution.

Pesticides:

kill thousands of beneficial insects, including honeybees, wasps, and ladybugs, for every insect that they attempt to control, and destroy the balance of nature.

are especially harmful to children. Children absorb more pesticides relative to their body weight and are unable to detoxify from the chemicals as their organs are still developing.

 

Each year more than 43,000 children under age six are exposed to concentrations of pesticides high enough to cause cancer, respiratory illness, and central nervous system damage.

Eco-Tips :: Natural Pest Management

 

If pyrethrum is so toxic why are synthetic pyrethrins used is just about every domestic fly spray.

[lemit]

Michaelangelica,

 

Check out Welcome to American Council on Science and Health

 

On their homepage, they have a lot of newspaper citations supporting their point of view, which is that anything that restricts big business for the benefit of the people is bad.

 

It's interesting to me, and it might be interesting to you, that many of those citations are from newspapers belonging to your countryman, an export I'm sure you're proud of. (We'd let you have him back. Just leave us "The Simpsons.")

 

This organization makes the book and movie "Thank You For Smoking" seem like a documentary. They blindly support using chemicals for agriculture, probably because it's hard to see over the stacks of money the chemical companies put in front of them.

 

I know both of my brothers have been given a lot of money by chemical companies. One of them, who passed away a few years ago, then promoted the chemicals over a large chunk of Kansas. The other has used the money to support supposedly government-funded research that seems meaningless except that it supports the use of chemicals in livestock feed, strangely enough.

 

Thank you for your post, which coincided with a "Daily Show" piece on the above organization and gave me a chance to rant and to remind people that pseudoscience can be dangerous to your health.

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

This is something I've wanted to do for a long time.

 

Over the years, I've come to love (as a journalist, historian, and editor) the very strange things people strongly believe is science.

--lemit

 

p.s. Any suggestions on how to get that music to stop?

 

By all indications, the music plays on. :singer:

So I earlier declined to expound on my list of pseudoscientificals, unless you were to ask specifically for a particular, as I felt doing so perpetuated the clap-trap. :doh: :naughty: As luck has it, one way or the other , the silly business of Earth has an hydrogen core has risen it's pseudoscientific noggin here again all of its own accord.

 

Everything you need to know is in the threads listed here: >> http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=372863

 

Should you be caught or killed reading them, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. :ud: :Alien:

[lemit]

By all indications, the music plays on. :singer:

So I earlier declined to expound on my list of pseudoscientificals, unless you were to ask specifically for a particular, as I felt doing so perpetuated the clap-trap. :doh: :naughty: As luck has it, one way or the other , the silly business of Earth has an hydrogen core has risen it's pseudoscientific noggin here again all of its own accord.

 

Everything you need to know is in the threads listed here: >> http://hypography.com/forums/search.php?searchid=372863

 

Should you be caught or killed reading them, the secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. :ud: :Alien:

 

Yes, like I said I had wanted to do this for a long time. When I did my research before starting the thread, I saw I wouldn't be the first one to broach the subject, not even counting the ones who have done so accidentally. But I didn't see much scholarship in the other threads, as there really should be in a science forum. So I decided it was time for that, along with the lists.

 

There are many people (mostly on the other side of the fence) who say that all science starts as unsupported pseudoscientific theory. If you don't think about it too much, that makes sense. In fact, you can think about it a long time and it stilll makes sense. Finally, of course, if you apply some historical context, you realize the idea is akin to suggesting that each of us is supplied a brand new genetic code at birth. But it's hard to get to that point.

 

As I mentioned earlier, that is an unfortunate problem with folklore, of which pseudoscience is a branch. It appeals to our sense of order, of justice, and of humor. The dry facts of real science are much less . . . well, appealing.

 

So, Turtle, this is your chance to present a well-reasoned post either for or against a pseudoscientific theory. In fact, I would like to challenge you or anybody else to present a theory in such a way that nobody can tell if it is science or pseudoscience.

 

I have my own didactic reasons for the proposal. For now, though, have fun with it.

 

Good luck!

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

Yes, like I said I had wanted to do this for a long time. When I did my research before starting the thread, I saw I wouldn't be the first one to broach the subject, not even counting the ones who have done so accidentally. But I didn't see much scholarship in the other threads, as there really should be in a science forum. So I decided it was time for that, along with the lists.

Unfortunately, the scholarship gets drowned out by the perps incessant high-pitched whining, and after all, the purveyors aren't really after scholarship anyway. I do think having the scholarship included is important of course, more for a matter of record for later readers rather than the promulgators.

 

There are many people (mostly on the other side of the fence) who say that all science starts as unsupported pseudoscientific theory.

Yep; ususally here it's stated as "science is just a belief too" along with some epithets.

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, that is an unfortunate problem with folklore, of which pseudoscience is a branch. It appeals to our sense of order, of justice, and of humor. The dry facts of real science are much less . . . well, appealing.

 

So, Turtle, this is your chance to present a well-reasoned post either for or against a pseudoscientific theory. In fact, I would like to challenge you or anybody else to present a theory in such a way that nobody can tell if it is science or pseudoscience.

 

I have my own didactic reasons for the proposal. For now, though, have fun with it.

 

Good luck!

 

--lemit

 

If you didn't have a look at the Urantia stuff here, then by all means do as it pretty well fits the bill for me well-reasoning the snot out of some pseudo-science. Got some good one liners in there too, as if that is hard for you to imagine from me. :singer:

 

As to making something up or trying to put lipstick on someone else's pig, I won't have any part of that. That's not how I roll, to put it in some vulgar vernacular. :naughty: I stand for truth, justice, and the hard-shell way.

[lemit]

Turtle,

 

Thanks for the referral. "Urantia" sounds like a multinational corporation or maybe a kidney disorder. I'm already beginning to dread what it actually is, but I'm sure I'll find a lot of laughs there.

 

Again, thanks.

 

--lemit

[lemit]

I just did an internet search. Turns out "Urantia" is a multinational kidney disorder. Who would have guessed?

 

--lemit

[CraigD]

I just did an internet search. Turns out "Urantia" is a multinational kidney disorder. Who would have guessed?

I wouldn’t have, and I’m in the business of providing names for diseases (medical information tech)!

 

I’m surprised, because the “uran-” word root (as in Uranus) stems from the Latinization of the (archaic?) Greek word “ouranos” meaning “heavens”, giving us not only the names of a well-known Greek god and planet, but the obscure synonyms for astronomy “uranography” and “uranometry”.

 

:naughty: What reference to a disease named “urantia” did you find, lemit?

 

Terms involving the kidney, bladder, and attendant body parts usually have word roots “nephr-”, from the Greek “nephros”, meaing “kidney” or urin-, from the Latin “urine”, meaning the same as in English.

 

The Urantia Book authors – who, regardless on what one can say about their respect for science and truth, were no slouches with language – seem to me to have invented “Urantia” – the word for the planet Earth in their new mythology – to both be unique, but rooted in an real old word root somewhat applicable but obscure enough not to sound silly. For example, had they called Earth “Cosmotia” or “Astrotia”, it wouldn’t have gone over as well, methinks.

 

Nomenclaturally, it’s a wrong word for Earth, since “uranos” explicity refers to the heavens, that which is beyond Earth, though according to the book, the terms in it are of extra-terrestrial origin, via “visitors” who used a sleeping William Sadler in a manner somewhat like a radio receiver and loudspeaker – what spiritualists these days would likely term channeling.

[lemit]

I wouldn’t have, and I’m in the business of providing names for diseases (medical information tech)!

 

I’m surprised, because the “uran-” word root (as in Uranus) stems from the Latinization of the (archaic?) Greek word “ouranos” meaning “heavens”, giving us not only the names of a well-known Greek god and planet, but the obscure synonyms for astronomy “uranography” and “uranometry”.

 

:QuestionM What reference to a disease named “urantia” did you find, lemit?

 

Terms involving the kidney, bladder, and attendant body parts usually have word roots “nephr-”, from the Greek “nephros”, meaing “kidney” or urin-, from the Latin “urine”, meaning the same as in English.

 

The Urantia Book authors – who, regardless on what one can say about their respect for science and truth, were no slouches with language – seem to me to have invented “Urantia” – the word for the planet Earth in their new mythology – to both be unique, but rooted in an real old word root somewhat applicable but obscure enough not to sound silly. For example, had they called Earth “Cosmotia” or “Astrotia”, it wouldn’t have gone over as well, methinks.

 

Nomenclaturally, it’s a wrong word for Earth, since “uranos” explicity refers to the heavens, that which is beyond Earth, though according to the book, the terms in it are of extra-terrestrial origin, via “visitors” who used a sleeping William Sadler in a manner somewhat like a radio receiver and loudspeaker – what spiritualists these days would likely term channeling.

 

Oh no! I've been found out!

 

Actually, I just took off from the "ur" at the beginning of the name and the general feeling that the syllable "ant" might have been added as the second initial syllable of a corporate name with the "ia" added to create an organizational sound.

 

I don't know. Explaining the joke isn't nearly as much fun as writing it was.

 

--lemit

[Furchizedek]

I wouldn’t have, and I’m in the business of providing names for diseases (medical information tech)!

 

I’m surprised, because the “uran-” word root (as in Uranus) stems from the Latinization of the (archaic?) Greek word “ouranos” meaning “heavens”, giving us not only the names of a well-known Greek god and planet, but the obscure synonyms for astronomy “uranography” and “uranometry”.

 

:) What reference to a disease named “urantia” did you find, lemit?

 

The Urantia Book authors – who, regardless on what one can say about their respect for science and truth, were no slouches with language – seem to me to have invented “Urantia” – the word for the planet Earth in their new mythology – to both be unique, but rooted in an real old word root somewhat applicable but obscure enough not to sound silly. For example, had they called Earth “Cosmotia” or “Astrotia”, it wouldn’t have gone over as well, methinks.

 

Nomenclaturally, it’s a wrong word for Earth, since “uranos” explicity refers to the heavens, that which is beyond Earth, though according to the book, the terms in it are of extra-terrestrial origin, via “visitors” who used a sleeping William Sadler in a manner somewhat like a radio receiver and loudspeaker – what spiritualists these days would likely term channeling.

 

I see in a later post that lemit admits to some sort of joke.

 

But it's clear that "Urantia" is a coined word, from the same root that Uranus and Uranium and Urania come from. My understanding is that we can take it to mean, "heavenly body" (planet?). The Revelators (if you will) coined a lot of words. The place where they say Adam and Eve came from is "Edentia." And the place where they say [Jesus] comes from is "Salvington." And so on. Clearly coined words. There have been a couple of scholarly studies, by Urantians, of the etymology of many of the words in the book.

 

Norm

[Furchizedek]

Nomenclaturally, it’s a wrong word for Earth, since “uranos” explicity refers to the heavens, that which is beyond Earth, though according to the book, the terms in it are of extra-terrestrial origin, via “visitors” who used a sleeping William Sadler in a manner somewhat like a radio receiver and loudspeaker – what spiritualists these days would likely term channeling.

 

One more comment on this. William Sadler was not the "sleeping subject." I'm not sure where that confusion comes from. No offense intended but it's not part of the history. Most "guesses" say that a Willfred Kellogg was the conduit. But no one knows. Second, Dr. Sadler said that the phenomena was nothing that was known, and was not channeling as we use the term today. Channeling apparently involves spirit entities (supposedly) invading the human mind and passing information though it the way beer passess through kidneys. The result is much the same too, if you have read any "channeled" material. There is a belief among Urantians that the spirit beings did not use or go through the conduit's mind, that such things are forbidden, for loyal spirit beings to violate the sanctity of the human mind. The belief is that the spirit beings manipulated the man's vocal chords, and/or his hands (to write with) but no one ever saw any of this happen. There is a further belief that after Dr. Sadler finally got on board and started to take this seriously, the Revelators simply materialized the Papers in Dr. Sadler's safe, in the conduit's handwriting.

 

Anyway, that's fwiw. LOL.

 

Norm.