I want to recommend a really good read about the scientific practice of medicine. It's called Testing Treatments by Imogen Evans, Hazel Thornton, and Iain Chalmers. It's available as a free download online, so if you're interested, there's no excuse not to get it.
Health and medicine is one of those fields where I feel that people could definitely benefit from better science based thinking. I've complained in the past about how fuzzy and woo-ish this subject can get, even within the field of medicine itself.
Good books on the science of medicine are, I believe, something we should endeavour to read so that we can wrap our minds around the issues of medicine and gain a firmer understanding of how our bodies actually work.
I just read Nightfall by Isaac Asimov. It was voted the "Best Science Fiction Short Story Of All Time" by the Science Fiction Writers Of America in 1964. When you find out that a story has received that kind of award, you've just got to check it out, right?
You can listen to an audio version of the story from the Escape Pod podcast. Its text is also available online. The reason I bring up the story is because it got me thinking about what science can know and what should be considered good evidence for something like a coming disaster.
The story is, of course, very compelling. though there was some science explained that I'm pretty sure is wrong. For example, if a planet were to be in such close proximity to 6 suns, and an alignment took place where only one of those suns were shining down on a hemisphere, the remaining 5 suns would still be lighting up the other hemisphere. An eclipse of that sole sun wouldn't throw the entire planet into darkness.
You can explain that away though. It could be that this planet only has one continent, and when the character Sheerin is explaining the science, he gets it slightly wrong. He does say that he's only giving the "layman's standpoint".
What I found more interesting was the kind of scientific evidence used by the scientists in the story to draw their conclusions. So I want to talk about that a little more. I don't think anything I have to say can be considered a spoiler, it's all revealed early on in the story. But you may want to read the story before continuing anyway, if you haven't already.
I found this blog, Swallowing The Camel, while doing research on the psychic detective Arthur Price Roberts. The author of the blog is a fellow Canadian, who describes herself as a "30ish housefrau".
She wasn't able to find out any more about Roberts than I was, but she didn't dwell on it so that probably makes her smarter than me.
Her goal is to examine "hoaxes, scams, controversies, rumours, schemes, bizarre
ideas, bogus products, disinformation, misinformation, impractical
jokes, literary fraud, and anything else that smells bad."
I found some very interesting articles, and spent some time reading them. Check out her list of the world's weirdest conspiracy theories. Good stuff!
I'd like to plug a blog that I've been reading for a little while, Friend Of Reason by Christian Polson-Brown. He tends to write about scientific issues that interest him, but he also does a bit of debunking and skeptical advocacy.
I found his blog on another forum, while I was specifically looking for other small time blogs to read. I love finding good resources which are not yet one of the popular big names.I noticed that Polson-Brown's experience with blogging had some similarities to mine, and joked with him that he was the Australian version of me.
Surprisingly, he didn't take offense at that.
Anyway, he writes about interesting subjects. He's a student of Conservation Biology, and often writes on related topics. Recommended reading if you share these interests.
If you're interested in how logic applies to the contemporary arguments you hear daily, I highly recommend the Princeton Review podcast LSAT Logic In Everyday Life.
The episodes are very short and analyze the logical arguments related to current events. Your host, Andrew Brody, treats the arguments from a dispassionate point of view, attempting to pick out their logical merits as though they were presented on the LSAT.
I love that the show's opening theme sounds like the beginning to some sham self-help tape, when the content of the podcast is anything but.
It's not just for people who are preparing for the LSAT. If you have an interest in logic and breaking down and understanding arguments, you'll find this podcast very entertaining.
I just came across a history channel documentary called "Ancient Aliens". It seemed like it would be something fun to watch and laugh at, so I have a saved recording of Episode 1: The Evidence.
I just watched the first 13 minutes which deals with the possibility of ancient flight, after which it moves on to ancient forms of space travel. I just thought to myself "Hell, this first segment is pretty much enough material for me to write a good sized blog post about!", so here I am.
Let's take a look at the evidence that ancient people possessed the power of flight... possibly given to them by... ALIENS!!!!
For those of us who consider ourselves skeptics, rationalists, or critical thinkers, there's a question about how we should handle religion and religious people. The question has been brought up on several podcasts, blogs, and online forums that I frequent, so it's been on my mind.
How should we deal with religion? What part should skepticism play in the discussion? Can religious people really be critical thinkers?
There's a school of thought that says that we should oppose religion and religious thought completely. That religion stands as completely opposed to critical thought, and that religious people cannot really be in "our camp".
This way of thinking makes me uncomfortable, and I want to explore it a little more in this post.
I wanted this posting to be another analysis of a tale from Nightmare Island, similar to my last two (here, and here). I'd set myself the task of researching the tale of Arthur Price Roberts, a "Psychic Detective" from the 30's.
The problem is that while those first two stories contained details that could be checked and easily researched, trying to find information about this psychic detective is like trying to grasp a cloud. The effort has left me with more questions than answers.
But I think that questions are important, and this case illustrates the need for critical scrutiny, and how important it is to provide sources for the claims that you make, especially when the claims are extraordinary in nature.
And this story is pretty extraordinary.
It's a strange thing. You'd think that for the most publicized and authenticated case of a psychic detective available, it would be easy to find..... well, publications or authentications.
But before we get into that, let's review the story of Mr. Roberts and what he is supposed to have accomplished:
My investigations of the claims of aspartame fear mongering started with this analysis of a video provided to me by my friend Jeff, which detailed the outlandish claims of one Mr. Ron Dodge. The next video that Jeff provided me isn't quite as outlandish, but this one may have a greater impact since it's a news story that reaches far more people.
Courtesy of YouTube, here's a video, including some commentary at the beginning, of a Fox News report on the alleged dangers of Aspartame:
It sounds scary, right? All those people saying that aspartame is bad for you.... I would have to be a dumbass to argue against the weight of this evidence!
I came across this article on canoe.ca by Vikram Sheel Kumar, MD. The article is entitled "Mobile phones are safe... we think. What we can do while the jury is out."
This is one of those articles that really depresses me, because it demonstrates vividly that we're just not adequately teaching our medical professionals critical thinking and how to understand science!
The jury is not "out" on mobile phones. The jury can only be "out" on the issue if there was ever any reason for the jury to be convened in the first place. The fact is that there's absolutely no reason to suspect that radiation from mobile phones is dangerous.
Dr. Kumar seems to have some idea that this is the case, and admits as much in the course of the article. But then goes on to make his case based solely on an argument from ignorance. It hasn't been proven absolutely that cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer.... therefore, there's cause for concern.
