1. Comment #61355 by Nails on August 5, 2007 at 12:16 am

It's about time someone made a public stance againt these nutters, and after comments in TGD I'm not suprised it's RD. Go get 'em!!!Can't wait to see this mini series.

But yesterday, Miss Livingstone hit back. "I have a 100 per cent success record with people at some level," she told The Sunday Telegraph. "Richard seemed to enjoy it while he was here. He was smiling and he didn't want it to stop.

Probably laughing his tits off at her absurd claims.

The refurbishment of the Royal London Homeopathic hospital was part-funded with £10 million of NHS money.

Situated right next door to Great Ormond Street Hospital, this building houses offices and clinics for the greatest children's hospital in the world.
And I can assure you it does not just house new-age dilluders, there are some very fine doctors and nurses working there!!!!

Other Comments by Nails

2. Comment #61358 by Happy Hominid on August 5, 2007 at 12:32 am

Once again an important reminder that our position as rational thinkers is not simply to hammer away at Christian Fundamentalism.

There are endless examples of muddled thinking and some of them have both a devastating impact and are easier to deal with than minds that are locked into any religious belief. Let's keep our eyes open to the big picture of living in a world based on Reason.

http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

3. Comment #61367 by Veronique on August 5, 2007 at 1:02 am

I just posted at the previous article. I take my hat off to this bloke, who continually puts himself out there picking at and exposing BS.

Unfortunately, the believers in this stuff are as adamant in their delusions as any religite.

Interesting - I wonder whether the Flea, Danielos and Biz can see the similarities between this (and I am sure they would view these beliefs with disdain) and their respective religious dogma?

I doubt it:-).

I want to see/hear these. I don't think I can get Ch.4 in Australia. Sob.

Frustrated (and don't read any more into that disclosure:-)).
V

Other Comments by Veronique

4. Comment #61377 by arthurmee on August 5, 2007 at 1:58 am

But yesterday, Miss Livingstone hit back. "I have a 100 per cent success record with people at some level,".

Notice the "at some level" phrase! And what level might that actually be Miss Livingstone?

Other Comments by arthurmee

5. Comment #61379 by Flagellant on August 5, 2007 at 2:03 am

I get pissed off by nonsense, too. I once asked an astrologer to tell me my 'birth sign'. She got it on the seventh go.

And didn't Diana consult a 'seer', not long before going to Paris?

How is it that such 'seers' aren't always winning Lotteries?

RD has suggested elsewhere that many of these charlatans should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. A few prominent prosecutions might do wonders for the nation's approach to reason.



Religion – an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

6. Comment #61383 by Goldy on August 5, 2007 at 2:11 am

It's all bollocks. Biz, Dianelos, WeeF et al probably condemn it as the devils work. No idea what Henri would think :-) Probably have to consult his old philosophers for an answer :-D
It is stupid - like Chinese medicine. I get told off a lot by my wife at my skepticism of their remedies, being told that it's old and if it didn;t work, they'd not be doing it. I then tell her of bound feet....
Just another way of parting a fool with his money.

Other Comments by Goldy

7. Comment #61385 by Quetzalcoatl on August 5, 2007 at 2:25 am

At the risk of being petty and insulting-

Miss Livingstone doesn't take a very good picture, does she? Wouldn't like to meet her in a dark alley.

arthurmee- I noticed the "at some level" comment too.

Livingstone said Dawkins couldn't stop smiling. Yes, dear, he was laughing at you.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

8. Comment #61388 by rokort on August 5, 2007 at 2:38 am

Again and again i'm amazed by how much it feels like coming home every time roaming this site. When reading or hearing Deepak Chopra i always had the feeling it was nothing more than a highly commercialised rip-off of some Buddhist teachings. The kind of deeper wisdom everybody can develop (and are sold as cliche's printed on ceramic tiles to hang on your wall at home) but with some Eastern transcendent sauce over it now sold as the new soulfood.

Thank you Prof. Dawkins for taking a stand against irrational thinking.

Other Comments by rokort

9. Comment #61402 by kirkmc on August 5, 2007 at 3:42 am

I applaud Prof. Dawkins for this. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that by living in a society that allows people to believe in ridiculous things (religion) without being ridiculed, that acceptance of belief has gone into other areas. As religion declines, as it is in many countries, people need to replace it with something.

As far as medicine is concerned, though, this is another problem. We are led to believe that medicine can cure everything, and when confronted with problems and conditions that it cannot cure, people go looking wherever they can. Doctors need to tell people that in some cases they just don't have answers. (Or they need to spend more time with people to try and elucidate their problems.)

Kirk

Other Comments by kirkmc

10. Comment #61413 by RebelSnake on August 5, 2007 at 4:53 am

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is to get people to beLIEve most any sort of nonsense you care to submit to them. As long as the packaging is pretty enough.

Other Comments by RebelSnake

11. Comment #61414 by MadAboutIt on August 5, 2007 at 4:54 am

We have laws to protect vulnerable members of society from people that might exploit them. We need new laws to protect the gulible from these lunatics, whether they are self deluded or simply plain scoundrels.
I used to work with one, he preyed on weak and simple people, waving pebbles, lucky charms and other nonsense at them claiming healing and psychic powers. Now he has taken seriously ill - where is he? you guessed it turning his back on the nonsense and grasping everything that modern medicine can offer tightly with both hands.
I wonder how many poor souls he previously told that they didnt need it?

Les

Other Comments by MadAboutIt

12. Comment #61416 by flobear on August 5, 2007 at 5:01 am

I'm glad Prof. Dawkins is making a public statement about these issues. Another leader in this field of debunking silly supernatural ideas is James Randi. He's a former stage magician and his foundation offers a $1 millon prize for demonstrating, in a controlled setting, any supernatural phenomena. He constantly challenges psychics and healers to take the test. Obviously, nobody has won it yet. Here's his website, I think many people here will enjoy it.

http://www.randi.org/

Other Comments by flobear

13. Comment #61420 by bobd on August 5, 2007 at 5:23 am

I can't wait!

Does anyone knon if a book is planned?

Other Comments by bobd

14. Comment #61431 by jonecc on August 5, 2007 at 6:20 am

I went through an 'alternative phase' twenty years ago. It only lasted a few years, fortunately. The conclusion I came to about the therapies I tried was this.

The people who practice it are genuinely caring people, who give you their full attention for the session (typically an hour). Very few of them make the kind of money people like Chopra make, and in their heads they're doing their bit to make the world a better place. This is unfortunately a delusional belief, based on a misunderstanding of their results.

They are a self-selected group, as people who are unable to generate results through the placebo effect are selected out, and abandon that line of work. Similarly, patients are a self-selected group, as those who are unresponsive to the placebo effect stop going.

With two self-selected groups, you would expect to get exactly what you do get - superficially impressive anecdotal evidence, which can't be reproduced under rigorous tests which follow proper procedures.

Whilst there are charlatans involved, the majority are simply people with untrained minds who get fooled, and then fool others in their turn. Just like with religion.

Other Comments by jonecc

15. Comment #61432 by Nick6742 on August 5, 2007 at 6:21 am

If you treat someone for cancer, how can you cure them 'at some level'? Either they still have cancer or they don't. The metastases grew or shrunk.

What bothers me about this new trend, is that it has adherents in dangerous places. I would wager that at least 10% of my medical school class believes in 'alternative medicine'. Does anyone really want your surgeon concerned with your aura, or your dermatologist concerned with meridian blocks?

Keep up the good fight against these fruitcakes.

Other Comments by Nick6742

16. Comment #61443 by arthurmee on August 5, 2007 at 7:13 am

Yes Quetzalcoatl, that picture of Miss Livingstone with an expression of ecstasy (?) on her face is a bit scary. I wondered what might be going on 'off camera'. A caption might be, "Don't stop Richard, you're smiling and don't want it to stop and neither do I. I'm sure we'll have 100% success. . . at some level."

Other Comments by arthurmee

17. Comment #61444 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 7:15 am

3. Comment #61367 by Veronique

V., check your PM's, your frustration is over, all you need now is patience.

Other Comments by Yorker

18. Comment #61445 by photopedia on August 5, 2007 at 7:23 am

It's always amusing to see someone expose the more idiotic fringes of alternative therapy but the general public still retain a strong belief in the benefits of many, more respectable, alternative medicines such as aromatherapy, homeopathy and countless herbal remedies without a shred of convincing scientific evidence to support their claims of efficacy.
As a practicing physician, I'm aware how disingenuous doctors can sometimes be with their patients when asked what they think of these remedies. We know perfectly well that they are expensive placebos but are reluctant to tell our patients exactly what we think for fear that we will lose the rapport that is so essential to a good doctor-patient relationship. We're frightened that too much honesty might diminish our ability to help our patients.
Worse still, I know some medical colleagues who make a very substantial amount of money from private homeopathic practice. They are either self-deluded in their belief in this pseudo-scientific nonsense or, more likely, they are happy to leave their scientific training and scruples at home when it suits their bank balance.
If you want to see James Randi at his debunking best then watch him exposing the nonsense that is homeopathy at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U.

Other Comments by photopedia

19. Comment #61446 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 7:24 am

Did anyone see that program last year about the Glasgow barber who's also a "celebrated" medium?

They asked his son what he thought of his father's abilities, his reply was straight to the point:

"Well, personally 'ah think it's a load ae shite, but maks a loat mair money than cuttin' herr!"

Other Comments by Yorker

20. Comment #61448 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 7:34 am

"Peter Fisher, the hospital's clinical director and a rheumatologist, tells him: 'I don't claim that it's much more than a hypothesis. What I do say is that I have considerable evidence that homeopathy does work.'"

No you fucking don't!!!

Time and again homeopathy has been proved to show results no better than placebo. Stop wasting my money on this shit!!

This is the second time I've seen MD's talk nonsense like this, what do they teach them in medical school? Is evidence optional?

Other Comments by Yorker

21. Comment #61449 by drive1 on August 5, 2007 at 7:42 am

I'm not sure about this strategy at all. I appreciate that RD's role is in educating the public about science generally. But by starting battles on various fronts, there's a very real risk that the charges of 'intolerance' and 'lack of intellectual curiosity' will stick. Religion is a huge thing to fight .. can we really afford to dilute our efforts?

On a more scientific note, is it not the case that a number of medical break-throughs have resulted from studying folklore or ancient practices? Do not the rain forests yield amazing, unimagined, chemicals? If we lump all unresearched stuff together and attack it, is it not possible we'll make a mistake? And if we say 'well, idea X might be worthy of more research but idea Y, albeit similar, clearly isn't', then isn't the message a bit piecemeal? Let us not become victims of our very own dihydrogen monoxide knee-jerk error.

Other Comments by drive1

22. Comment #61455 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 7:52 am

18. Comment #61445 by photopedia

Last year I challenged a homeopathy-supporting doctor. When I put it to her that if water retained a memory of everything that had been in it and had a health effect because of that, the effect would be death! It would be the most toxic substance in the Universe! She gave me a blank look; it turned out she didn't know that homeopathy depended on such balderdash!

What's going on? Have educational standards slipped this badly? Or is it (as I suspect) that rampant greed is overwhelming everything, including peoples integrity, ethics and self-respect.

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #61456 by cry4turtles on August 5, 2007 at 7:58 am

Perhaps I'm professing a semantic confusion, but when I think of alternative or homeopathic medicine, psychics, faith healers, mediums, etc. don't come to mind. I think of using nutrition, supplements, stress reduction, and even some forms of visualization and meditation to heal and/or increase health. I know the latter to be very effective in many cases; however, the former group of people I simply know as kooks.

Other Comments by cry4turtles

24. Comment #61457 by photopedia on August 5, 2007 at 8:07 am

22. Comment #61455 by Yorker.

In my experience, most doctors are not that rigorous and scientific in their everyday thinking. Medicine is as much an art as it is a science and I think that doctors reflect that in their beliefs and behaviour.
It is often quoted that over 90% of scientists are either atheists or agnostics but I'll bet you that the figure is MUCH lower for medics.
Most practicing doctors take a pragmatic approach to problems. It doesn't help to be too black and white when dealing with complicated organisms like human beings! I think that this attitude spills over into their attitudes to belief and superstition.

Other Comments by photopedia

25. Comment #61459 by Michael P. on August 5, 2007 at 8:12 am

It's probably old hat to folks in these parts, but Penn and Teller's Bullshit has trounced some of these topics, particularly in the show's first season. Some of the debunked subjects include Alternative Medicine, Feng Shui, ESP, Ouija Boards, Near Death Experiences, Yoga and Tantric Sex, and other fave alternative approaches of "seekers" everywhere.

Other Comments by Michael P.

26. Comment #61461 by Bookman on August 5, 2007 at 8:23 am

I am very pleased to hear the RD is taking on the Woo. I'd love to see him interview some publishers of New Age books. If they are being honest they will tell him that they know it's complete garbage and they had many good laughs over it at their editorial meetings. I first heard the term "woo woo" years ago from a veteran book rep whose job it was to sell the stuff to bookstores. He actually met Chopra once, who struck him as a complete fraud (Chopra had a book-launch party at his California home and was wearing a toga-like outfit; around the swimming pool were a bevy of nubile young women). New Age books receive the same level of derision from book people as self-help books. There's a lot of money in it, but selling woo-woo makes one feel dirty. I'm glad that Professor Dawkins now has this target in his sights.

Other Comments by Bookman

27. Comment #61464 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 8:44 am

drive1:

can we really afford to dilute our efforts?

By criticizing popular but unfounded claims in medicine and other areas, I think we clarify the nature of our complaint against religion.

Religious people frequently pretend that our beef with religion is due to "anger at God" or some other irrational hatred of something most of the world embraces. There's no better way to counter this accusation than by taking on unreason generally.

cry4turtles:

when I think of alternative or homeopathic medicine, psychics, faith healers, mediums, etc. don't come to mind. I think of using nutrition, supplements, stress reduction, and even some forms of visualization and meditation to heal and/or increase health. I know the latter to be very effective in many cases; however, the former group of people I simply know as kooks.

A popular misconception. There is no logical distinction between traditional and "alternative" medicine. There are only proven therapies and unproven therapies. Once a therapy is proven to work, medicine embraces it.

Doctors must be rational. Many are not as rational as they ought to be, and all suffer the compartmentalization of understanding that results from having a modular brain. Still, why do so many exhibit a tolerant attitude toward alternative practice?

1. A frank, vocal stand against alternative practice alienates patients.
2. A number of alternative therapies incorporate proven interventions - stress management, better diet, positive attitude.
3. Many alternative therapies do little or no harm, aside from the loss of a few dollars.
4. Doctors try to remain neutral toward spiritual matters; many alternative therapies claim some spiritual basis.
5. Communal reinforcement: doctors won't speak out forcefully against alternative treatment, until many doctors do the same.
6. Patient visits are 9-15 minutes in length. There are more important matters to discuss.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

28. Comment #61466 by automath on August 5, 2007 at 8:51 am

I don't suppose it helps matters when there are some UK Universities offering B.Sc courses in witchcraft (complementary medicine) et al. Although these universities are being viewed as a laughing stock in the more sensible circles, it still lends credibility to a not very skeptical (thoughtful) public.

Other Comments by automath

29. Comment #61467 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 8:52 am

24. Comment #61457 by photopedia

I'm sure what you say is true, but isn't it also true that doctors who line their pockets by knowingly as you say, practicing nonsense, are violating the most valuable part of the doctor/patient relationship, i.e. trust. Why do we allow such doctors to continue practicing?

There's a very good website named "QuackWatch" run by Dr. Stephen Barrett, perhaps all medical students should be required to visit it from time to time.

Here's the link for those who don't know of it, you can spend hours there.

http://www.quackwatch.com/

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #61470 by Richard Dawkins on August 5, 2007 at 9:26 am

Steve Jones made up a lovely joke about a homeopath who forgot to take his medicine and died of an overdose.

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

31. Comment #61471 by the_assayer on August 5, 2007 at 9:41 am

LOL!!! Thats a good one... :D

Other Comments by the_assayer

32. Comment #61473 by discipline on August 5, 2007 at 9:48 am

I wholeheartedly agree with drive1 above.

As I stated in the other thread, this is not a fruitful direction the "new atheist" movement should be going in. Sure, New Age quackery is probably derived from the same combination of wishful thinking and self-delusion that religion is, but the former is not leading the US and the world into a dangerous theocracy.

Belief in crystals or astrology isn't ruining American public school education, electing far-right born-again leaders, compromising civil rights and reproductive freedom, or compelling people to fly planes into buildings.

We secularists need to pick our battles and this new direction just dilutes our efforts.

Other Comments by discipline

33. Comment #61474 by kirkmc on August 5, 2007 at 9:50 am

I don't know how it is in the UK, but in France, where I live, homeopathy is considered not only acceptable, but it is officially sanctioned by the Social Security (national health system). I had some bad experiences when I was younger and more foolish, with homeopathic doctors (they are all MDs) who give me sugar pills rather than look closely to find a real problem I had. But the officiality of homeopathy made me look at it as though it had some validity.

This said, a physical therapist I see has told me that, even though he knows it is bunk, it doesn't bother him that much. The placebo effect does cure a lot of people, the meds are much cheaper than big pharma pills, and there are no side effects. While I can agree with this to a point, the broader problem is that people believe something works because their doctors do, and their doctors are swindling them. They don't make any more money than other doctors, but they are maintaining a fraudulent system.

Kirk

Other Comments by kirkmc

34. Comment #61475 by Veronique on August 5, 2007 at 9:58 am

6. Comment #61383 by Goldy

My Japanese step-mother died from a lymphoma (statistically more common among the Japanese).

From the time she was diagnosed, my father, a research biochemist, sought out the best care and treatment he could find for her (and, of course he knew a considerable number of health care professionals). She insisted on going back to Japan and engaging some wanky, not new-age, but old-age, practitioner in the health arts.

My pater was so distressed that she wouldn't take on a treatment program here in Australia on a regular basis. Then she died. Poor Hanako, poor pater. All I, and my brother, could do was stand helplessly by. Very sad. I am not saying she would have survived the cancer, but ooh, it was a tragedy to watch.

I know Biz, the Flea and Dianelos would see this as the devils' work – but would they admit to the same operating procedure as their funky religions?

Well said jonecc, I think you have their number.

Thanks to you Corylus. I will try it all out. Don't be surprised if you see an avatar from nowhere popping up:-).

Yorker have sent you an email. Great stuff!!

18. Comment #61445 by photopedia

Horrible isn't it? My quack is also my friend. We exchange books and he works by himself. So, on the rare occasion I consult him, he gives about an hour of his time so lots of what would normally be overlooked bits get spoken about. He's a delight and the best swabber I have ever known:-). No BS for him!

21. Comment #61449 by drive1

Of course medicine has progressed from active ingredients taken from the natural world. Those ingredients have been distilled and, often synthesised, to produce very effective treatments. And that still goes on. The pharma companies scour the planet looking for such potential cures.

The thing is that they test, do their homework, synthesise and test further. There are government agencies that either endorse or not, these treatments. It's pretty rigorous (though not infallible – that's life).

When new age charlatan health prescribers hand out their treatments:

1.They are not medically trained
2.They are caught by the edicts of The Therapeutic Goods Administration (or its equivalent) that is manned by medically trained professionals
3.They think in terms of 'holistic' treatment that doesn't address specifics
4.Yes, they genuinely believe they know better than trained physicians
5.They sell their wares based on 'organics' – a dangerous practice.

They are dangerous people, even those who believe they are doing the best for their customers. Well done for remembering that urban legend about H2O. That unleashed a mass of money-making charlatans and was picked up by the most gullible people out there in the world. Extraordinary. Even when it was exposed, people still believed it.

24. Comment #61457 by photopedia

Absolutely! As an eg. Nutrition, as a part of medical training, is only briefly touched on in medical school (at least in Australia). Most medics know very little about nutritional health. Six years isn't long as a study time to cover the range of human 'organisms' ills, both real and imagined. Dealing with people is a tricky business. And then they can be seduced by the big pharmas anyway.

I am also pleased that RD is tackling this area. No, it's not diluting his message regarding belief without evidence, it's bringing this woo woo (I didn't realise that this term related to this) under the same umbrella. Good on him!

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

35. Comment #61476 by Canuck#1 on August 5, 2007 at 10:00 am

To me the most despicable thing about these practices and "cures" is what it does to the people who come to these "phonies".....many are scared and desperate,....in pain and suffering...willing to try anything....and are assured they will be cured. It doesn't happen and ... I can only imagine what this must do to them. To me the worst are the "faith healers" who blame god when there is no change...it was not god's will. If you get a chance watch
one of these "cretins" at work. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!!!!!

Other Comments by Canuck#1

36. Comment #61477 by Sathya_Sai_Baba on August 5, 2007 at 10:05 am

To discipline:

This is exactly what a 'new atheist' should be thinking about. The battle of a new atheist is not essentially religion vs. science. It is faith vs reason which manifest extremely potently in the two aforementioned respectively. These new age therapies are yet another creation of a superstitious faith-based mind and are also capable of inflicting suffering or at least hindering its alleviation by convincing desperate people they can heal themselves by freeing up meridian channels.

This doesn't dilute our efforts, it makes them all the more focused as it more truly targets our enemy - faith and dogma. However, I'm not an American and have no experience of what it's like on the streets - I'll find out in a week as I'm going to Penn State for a year on exchange! Then I'll comment with some weight behind it :)

Other Comments by Sathya_Sai_Baba

37. Comment #61479 by drive1 on August 5, 2007 at 10:21 am

Dr Benway wrote: By criticizing popular but unfounded claims in medicine and other areas, I think we clarify the nature of our complaint against religion. Religious people frequently pretend that our beef with religion is due to .. some .. irrational hatred of something most of the world embraces. There's no better way to counter this accusation than by taking on unreason generally.

As a general principle, one should pick one's battles carefully. The majority of religious people I know do not espouse new age therapy, crystal healing, fairies, or even Gaia theories. All we'll do is convince a separate section of society that we're a bunch of dogmatic, hectoring know-it-alls.

By its very nature, homeopathy and related areas are all capable of being judged using scientific methodology. The approach should be empirical, nothing else. In attacking religion we use very different tools, such as humour, logic and lit'crit'. I honestly think we're in danger of getting too cocky and losing the passion and humour which we can concentrate on a 'one-issue' campaign. When the feminism movement started gaining momentum, they didn't diversify into saving gay whales, or some other project. Instead they concentrated on the key areas of opposition, breaking them down one by one. Hopefully we're smart enough not to try and reinvent the wheel.

Other Comments by drive1

38. Comment #61483 by Kingasaurus on August 5, 2007 at 10:33 am

I'm not sure I see the benefits of refusing to call certain kinds of nonsense exactly that, simply because of a kind of strategic concern that some of the nonsense-believers might think you're dogmatic.

The claims psychics, homeopaths and astrologers are either bogus, or they're not.

I can't see why stating out loud that their claims are bogus is a bad idea.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

39. Comment #61486 by drive1 on August 5, 2007 at 10:49 am

I can't see why stating out loud that their claims are bogus is a bad idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that the god/no god debate is losing impetus, with both sides firmly entrenched. The people we should be reaching out to are in the middle ground. They likely have vague notions of god / Gaia / auras etc .. they just haven't thought it through. If we say 'there is no god; oh, and by the way, all that other stuff you think might have something going for it is tosh too', I'm not sure the tide will go our way.

We don't give stuff credence because we don't mention it. We're looking to win hearts and minds, are we not? Alienating people will give us an easy victory. But it'll be Pyrrhic, nonetheless.

Possibly.

Other Comments by drive1

40. Comment #61488 by jonecc on August 5, 2007 at 10:56 am

drive1:

I'm not sure that this TV piece is a part of the New Atheist movement as such. Isn't it more something RD would be doing as part of his Simonyi remit to improve the public understanding of science? Or just because he felt like it? If I was in his position, I could well imagine feeling that way.

Having said that, there is of course an intellectual coherence to putting the two together. Religious evangelists and astro-homeopathic types both typically ascribe their beliefs to personal experience which goes beyond rational analysis, and when I find myself arguing with either type it's useful to be able to point out that both they and the other type make mututally exclusive claims on similarly subjective grounds.

Once I've pointed out the massive range of weird and wonderful things people are prepared to believe on the basis of subjective, anecdotal experience, I then go on to argue that evidential analysis is the only tool we have to transcend this subjectivity.

They really hate it when I do that, which isn't by any means the worst part of it.

Other Comments by jonecc

41. Comment #61495 by maton100 on August 5, 2007 at 11:12 am

Look closely at the picture of the woman. She is insane.

Other Comments by maton100

42. Comment #61497 by Greg23 on August 5, 2007 at 11:14 am

When will it be shown in America? -

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Other Comments by Greg23

43. Comment #61499 by Corylus on August 5, 2007 at 11:19 am

Interesting debate on tactics.

I would point out that there is a practical reason why this documentary might be a good idea at this time. This is simply publicity. Who hasn't see a documentary, or read a book by someone, enjoyed it, and then gone out to buy the other stuff that this person has produced?

(N.B. I would not be at all surprised if the sales of RD's other books has increased as a consequence of TGD).

TGD is still on the bestseller lists, and easy to find in shops. This documentary could keep the momentum of sales going before it is relegated to the science or religion (or wherever else the booksellers choose to file it!) section of the bookshop. Just a thought.

Other Comments by Corylus

44. Comment #61502 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 11:38 am

A health practice run on logical Pythonesque lines (or New Labour policy of the near future).







Receptionist:
"Good morning madam, will it be Rational or Sympathetic Medicine today?"

Patient:
"Well, me back 'urts and now me 'usbands gone I can't get any 'elp, I'll take Sympathetic"

Receptionist:
"Very well, just take a seat, Dr. Bullshot with call you shortly.

Dr. Bullshot (3 hours later):
"Well now Mrs Morbid, how can I help you?"

Patient:
"Well doctor me back's givin' me gyp and it's got a lot worse sittin' 'ere 3 hours!"

Dr. Bullshot:
"Oh I'm sorry, but this kind of medicine does take time you know. Tell you what, just take off your fur coat and I'll give it a little rub eh?"

Patient:
"Will that 'elp me back doctor? Won't rubbin' it wear the fur off? If it does can I get a new one off the National 'ealth?"

Dr. Bullshot: (with strained laughter):
No, no Mrs Morbid, your back, I'm going to rub your back you see!"

Patient:
"Ooh, I don't know about that doctor, wot would my dear 'usband up in 'eaven fink if 'e looked down and saw a strange man rubbin' me?"

Dr. Bullshot:
"Well, he would see I'm only trying to help you Mrs Morbid"

Patient:
"No, the pain's close to my arse, 'e would fink you're tryin' to give me one, can't I just 'ave some of that 'erbal or homopoxic stuff?"

Dr. Bullshot:
"Well yes, but I'll have to charge you for that, the money funds the Rational department you see."

Patient:
"Well OK, but I 'ate 'avin' to pay for them smart-arse, Richard Dorkins-luvin, BBC2-watchin', opera-luvin fans of Plastico Dominky and Lucy Pavarocky Rational bastards; why don't you just poison the fuckin' lot of 'em and get us all back to proper doctorin'!"

Dr. Bullshot (laughing heartily):
"Oh, you are a hoot Mrs Morbid but we can't really do that, where would we get all our tax money from eh? Just take these sucrose pills fifty times a day and if you're not feeling better in a year, come back and see me. The receptionist will take your credit card on the way out but if you can't afford it, I'll sign a little note you can take to your bank and they'll give you a loan. And don't worry, your genome shows you only have another two months but we don't set much store by what the Rationalists say in the Sympathetic department."

Patient:
"Ok doctor I'll give 'em a go."


The Next Patient

Receptionist:
"Good morning sir, will it be Rational or Sympathetic?"

Patient (indignantly):
"What's wrong with you woman? Do I look like one of those homeopathic, herbal tea-drinking, Deepak Chopra-loving, Derek Acora-watching, Big Brother-viewing, Coronation Street-lovers to you?. Give me Rational of course, and look sharp now!"

Receptionist:
"Certainly sir, don't bother taking a seat, Dr. Perfect-Bergson will call you within 10 seconds."

Dr. Perfect-Bergson (100 milliseconds later):
"Well, out with it man, I don't have all day to waste with weak lily-livered malingerers!"

Patient:
"Well doctor, I don't know how to begin, it's a little embarrassing…"

Dr. Perfect-Bergson (interrupting impatiently):
"What's little, your cock? Can't get it up eh? Is that your problem, come on man, be strong; spit it out."

Patient:
"Now look here Dr. Perfect-Bergson or whatever your name is, I didn't come here to watch you spewing technicolour excrement, I have a legitimate health problem that needs attention; can we just restrict the conversation to that?"

Dr. Perfect-Bergson:
"So, you have a problem do you? Where's your individuality man, that's what everyone says! Think about it, do you really have a problem, or is it just that you think you have a problem? There is a difference you know, or are you too stupid to see that?"

Patient:
"This is ridiculous, so far you haven't even asked what's wrong, all you given me is a load of pseudo-philosophical bullshit about strength and individuality, we haven't even touched upon the question of psychiatry's legitimacy or whether the likelihood of God's existence is worthy of debate."

Dr. Perfect-Bergson:
"Oh stop being so sentimental, you sound like a woman! I'm going to recommend some books to you, read them and come back when you have, I'll decide if you're worth wasting any more time on!"

Patient:
"Books! I don't need books, I've probably read many more books than you…"

Dr. Perfect-Bergson (interrupting again):
"Rubbish! I'm very well-read, I'm so well-read that authors contact me before they write books to make sure they don't mention anything I already know about! Clearly, you don't know who I am"

Patient (getting angry):
"I don't give a fuck who you are! I came here to the Rational department expecting a calm, reasoned response followed by accurate diagnosis to my health problem that could swiftly be cured by medication derived through application of the scientific method and produced by people THAT ACTUALLY FUCKING DO SOMETHING!!!! I didn't prepare myself for a load of philosophy that achieves and produces nothing! Now, are we going to discuss my health or not!"

Dr. Perfect-Bergson (with disdain):
"Oh alright you weakling, what's the matter?"

Patient (thinking):
"Ahh shit…I can't remember now, I'll just go to the other department, perhaps a Sympathetic ear will help."

Other Comments by Yorker

45. Comment #61504 by SteveKisko on August 5, 2007 at 11:42 am

I can certainly imagine the profound disillusionment a believer might feel when they lose their faith in both god AND quackery -- as drive1 pointed out -- but really, that's their problem!

I don't understand the concerns about "diluting" the efforts of the New Atheist movement just because Richard Dawkins has written a program debunking psychics, homeopathy, etc. I don't think Dawkins sees himself as an ATHEIST above all other things, or as the leader of the New Atheist movement (ugh), or anything like that. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he cares as much -- and probably more -- about evolutionary biology and science & reason in general than atheism or antitheism. Check the name of his new foundation if you're in doubt. Certainly the "battle," as he sees it, is a larger one pitting all types of faith against reason, not just religion vs. atheism.

Moreover, he can do whatever he wants, and if you think he's pushing it too far... well, no one said that he necessarily speaks for all atheists everywhere.

Perhaps I am one of those cats which are so difficult to herd, but I don't understand all this 'We' stuff. I'm an atheist and a skeptic in general, and I love this website dearly, but this isn't a clubhouse, and I'm not a member.

(Sorry for coming off so combative, but some of the comments on this article really "raised my hackles.")

Other Comments by SteveKisko

46. Comment #61505 by Dr Benway on August 5, 2007 at 11:59 am

discipline:

Belief in crystals or astrology isn't ruining American public school education, electing far-right born-again leaders, compromising civil rights and reproductive freedom, or compelling people to fly planes into buildings.

Alternative therapies cost Americans several billions of dollars annually. The existence of these therapies, like the existence of religious claims about the world, is symptomatic of a deeper social and educational problem.

What is the legal basis for our complaint against religion? Aren't we faulting believers for asserting claims about the world without evidence? Isn't this our entire argument, essentially? Don't we have a duty to apply that standard generally, if our argument is to be appreciated and understood?

From Bob Park's site 7-13-07:

The leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the U.S. Government, the Surgeon General is nominated by the President, and gets to wear a really neat white uniform. It is the SG's duty to educate the public about health issues. To make sure the SG gets it right, everything the SG says or writes is vetted by a White House political appointee whose job is to ensure that the President is mentioned three times on every page, and issues the President has already decided are not mentioned at all, such as stem cells, Plan B and global warming. It all came out this week as the Senate began hearings on the nomination of James W. Holsinger to the post. Richard Carmona, who served as SG from 2002 to 2006 under Bush, testified Tuesday that if science doesn't support the White House agenda, it's suppressed. Holsinger testified yesterday that he would not give in to politics.

It's one thing not to know how old the universe or the earth is. Factual errors are easy to fix. But how do you correct someone who believes it's appropriate to legislate which scientific results are appropriate or inappropriate for public discourse? How do you reason from evidence, when people don't seem to have a clue what "evidence" actually means?

How often do we hear, "science is just one way of knowing things" or "the Bible says... therefore I don't believe in stem cell research."

Religion is a symptom. Homeopathy is a symptom. "Evolution is just a theory" is a symptom. "I don't believe in global warming" is a symptom. "Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral" is a symptom. "We'll be welcomed as liberators" is a symptom. Unreason is the disease.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

47. Comment #61512 by Kakashi_monkey on August 5, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Again it happens. People settle for what they want, not what they need. They think going to a spiritual healer does them good, and they leave happy and don't care about any of it beyond that.

Superstition rules only because people believe what they want to! Those who belive in ghosts do so becuase they want to believe in them. I have seen a lot of pictures and videos of "ghost encounters", and it's obvious to me they're 100% fake. I'm young, but I can reject nonsense people twice my age gladly take in.

Other Comments by Kakashi_monkey

48. Comment #61514 by Duff on August 5, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Drive1,
I am so personally over every kind of quackery, be it religious or "new age alternative medicine". The very term is an irritation, hinting as it does that it is just another kind of medicine.
Its time we stopped coddling the purveyors of ignorance and irrationalism in this dangerous world.
I also disagree with you that the impetus has gone out of the atheist campaign. I think it has only begun and it will grow if people like yourself get over your kindliness and don't let up on the believers of this nonsense.

Other Comments by Duff

49. Comment #61518 by Yorker on August 5, 2007 at 1:38 pm

46. Comment #61505 by Dr Benway

Good points there birdman! Ten years ago I called it the New Age of Unreason.

Incidentally, what happened to the samurai?

Other Comments by Yorker

50. Comment #61520 by Lionel A on August 5, 2007 at 1:58 pm

Comment #61514 by Duff:
I am so personally over every kind of quackery, be it religious or "new age alternative medicine". The very term is an irritation, hinting as it does that it is just another kind of medicine.

Perhaps we could simply use that old, old description 'snake oil'.

Other Comments by Lionel A