Enemies of Reason
Just a quick heads-up about a the new Richard Dawkins show that's airing Monday evening.
Science's favourite Grumpy Old Man turns his attention to the quacks and fraudsters that sell homeopathic remedies and other products collectively known as "woo" by regular readers of Bad Science.
As a scientist, it makes me really angry to see how gullible people can be in believing a lot of this stuff, taking it at face value without really considering what they are buying into. Homeopathy is one of the worst but there are many many more. The media is also culpable in peddling a lot of this stuff or selectively reporting on the scientific studies into it. Any serious scientific research is ignored by the alternative therapists - or they try and wriggle out of it by claiming that there are negative energies caused by the scientists doing the study. Watch the elecrosensitive lobby try and wriggle out of the study that there is no such thing as electrosensitivity.
It's almost laughable, if it wasn't such big business. And in many cases, bloody dangerous. People are dying because they are not taking proper medication in favour of these half-arsed products. The AIDS crisis in South Africa is hardly helped by the governments belief that all you need to do is eat fruit and veg rather than taking anti-aids drugs.
I can't wait to see what Richard Dawkins has to say about all of this. I've read his book The Devils Chaplain, and there's some excellent discussion of a lot of this in there. I'm really hoping this gets a lot of viewers, and more importantly starts to make people actually think critically for a change.
I once had a lecture from Dawkins when I was studying for my Biology degree. He gave a one-off lecture on evolutionary biology. He came across as rather an arrogant chap, which is a shame as he has a lot of interesting things to say. But science needs someone like him in its corner, trying to fight against the wave upon wave of irrational rubbish that is being peddled to us every day.
For a great write up about the show, there's a nice piece on the Guardian site today.
Science's favourite Grumpy Old Man turns his attention to the quacks and fraudsters that sell homeopathic remedies and other products collectively known as "woo" by regular readers of Bad Science.
As a scientist, it makes me really angry to see how gullible people can be in believing a lot of this stuff, taking it at face value without really considering what they are buying into. Homeopathy is one of the worst but there are many many more. The media is also culpable in peddling a lot of this stuff or selectively reporting on the scientific studies into it. Any serious scientific research is ignored by the alternative therapists - or they try and wriggle out of it by claiming that there are negative energies caused by the scientists doing the study. Watch the elecrosensitive lobby try and wriggle out of the study that there is no such thing as electrosensitivity.
It's almost laughable, if it wasn't such big business. And in many cases, bloody dangerous. People are dying because they are not taking proper medication in favour of these half-arsed products. The AIDS crisis in South Africa is hardly helped by the governments belief that all you need to do is eat fruit and veg rather than taking anti-aids drugs.
I can't wait to see what Richard Dawkins has to say about all of this. I've read his book The Devils Chaplain, and there's some excellent discussion of a lot of this in there. I'm really hoping this gets a lot of viewers, and more importantly starts to make people actually think critically for a change.
I once had a lecture from Dawkins when I was studying for my Biology degree. He gave a one-off lecture on evolutionary biology. He came across as rather an arrogant chap, which is a shame as he has a lot of interesting things to say. But science needs someone like him in its corner, trying to fight against the wave upon wave of irrational rubbish that is being peddled to us every day.
For a great write up about the show, there's a nice piece on the Guardian site today.
posted by Joanna @ 8/11/2007 03:21:00 PM
5 Comments:
At August 11, 2007 7:54 PM,
Selina said…
I've got to be honest and say I struggle with Dawkins. Sometimes he's spot on (particularly with regard to alternative medicines and such like). But sometimes he seems to adopt a position and then cherry-picks facts to reinforce his views on other subjects.
But it all makes for good television.
At August 12, 2007 6:53 PM,
Emilygrae said…
While science and reason is all well and good, sometimes laughter truly is the best medicine. And the science of today (medicine at least) will be considered witchcraft of tomorrow.
That being said, one thing I hate over here in the states is how you need a prescriptionr for a lot of simple drugs, yet a person can go to the "Herbal Remedy" isle where there is no regulation and bottles full of bollocks sit next to some other herbs that can potentially kill. Fantastic!
If people want to rub their warts with a dish towel and bury it in the yard during a full moon thinking it'll rid them of said warts, all the power too them. Whatever. BUT, if they subject themselves (or worse, loved ones) to a purely faith based remedy for a brain aneurysm, I feel that some sort of intervention should take place. I mean, I can sometimes think away the pain from a paper cut, but it would take Yoda's level of meditation to cure aids.
At August 13, 2007 12:28 PM,
Joanna said…
A nice piece from the Times:
"The one real row was with a psychic he consulted at a New Age fair, who told him she was in contact with Dawkins’s “dead” father in the spirit world and relayed a message in some detail. “I sat there po-faced and let her go on for quite some time before I said, ‘Actually my father is alive and well and living in Oxfordshire.’ Immediately she said, ‘Stop the camera!’ and tried to terminate the whole thing. To my disgust we had to cut her out of the programme for legal reasons, which is a great shame. She was a real charlatan.”"
Linky
At August 25, 2007 9:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dawkins throws the philosophical baby out with the bathwater.
Some careful reading of mathematician Kurt Godel, philosopher Karl Popper, and artificial intelligence theorist Douglas Hofstader, and one begins to see that actually, science is an extremely limited way of viewing the world -- theories which don't fit the data, get thrown out, and vice versa.
Check out what Thomas Kuhn said about paradigm shifts.
Godel proved that mathematics is incomplete - using mathematics. Physicists are reluctant to make the connection between his theory of incompleteness and Heisenberg uncertainty at quantum level.
Of course, nobody wants to admit to this, particularly Dawkins, because corporate science currently fulfils capitalism's wet dream of growth -- and these are the sociopolitical forces which Dawkins represents.
At August 26, 2007 11:40 PM,
Joanna said…
"Theories that don't fit the data get thrown out"
Isn't that the point? I have a theory, I test the theory. The data I get suggest something different. I junk the theory or refine it, or do more test. Or get others to do test.
Science is published in peer-reviewed journals. If data is found that changes a theory, and others can replicate and repeat it, then the theory gets altered.
The problem with pseudoscience such as homeopathy or electrosensitivity is that tests have been done that show there is no effect. These are double blind tests. The people who want to believe then just find fault with the experimental design, or just find more bizarre ways of "explaining away" the failure such as "your negative energies were blocking it from working"
Science is very open. If it can be tested, replicated and proven to occur then it is embraced. If it just relies on a hunch, or faith or an unprovable feeling then it is not science, it is superstition.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home