Thursday, February 28, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Taking evidence seriously

by Alan Sokal, Guardian

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/alan_sokal/2008/02/taking_evidence_seriously.html

Public policy decisions should be based on evidence. So why are taxpayers funding faith schools and alternative therapies?

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," a senior adviser to President Bush told the New York Times in the summer of 2002.

It might seem obvious that public policy ought to be based on reality and evidence, but the implications of taking seriously an evidence-based worldview are far more radical than most people realise.

Here's one example: the British government is now introducing standards of competence in homeopathy, aromatherapy, reflexology and other "alternative" therapies, in order to protect the public from inadequately trained practitioners. That sounds nice, at first glance. But what, precisely, does it mean to be "competent" in a system of pseudo-medicine that has never been demonstrated to be efficacious beyond the placebo effect? Perhaps for its next act, the NHS will introduce bloodletting and trepanation, duly guaranteed by rigorous standards of competence for practitioners.

Despite the utter scientific implausibility of homeopathy - in which the "remedies" are so highly diluted that they contain not a single molecule of the alleged "active ingredient" - the NHS actively promotes homeopathy on its website and provides homeopathic "treatment" at the taxpayers' expense. And there are five homeopathic hospitals in the UK, of which four are funded by NHS money.

No one, not even the health minister, knows how much the NHS spends annually on unproven (or disproven) complementary and alternative therapies, because the NHS does not bother to keep track - but estimates range from £50m to £450m. Granted, that's a tiny fraction of the £92bn NHS budget, but it's still money that could give thousands of cancer patients provably effective therapies that are now denied for cost reasons.

Here's another example: the government under former prime minister Tony Blair assiduously promoted state subsidies for faith-based schools. Of course, "faith" is here being used as an ecumenical-sounding euphemism for "religion", but the word is still revealing. For what is "faith", if not the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they lack adequate evidence?

After it was reported that a publicly-funded Christian school in Gateshead had been teaching creationism, Blair was asked in parliament whether he was "happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools". Blair (always the consummate politician) avoided a direct answer, but defended the school in question and said "in the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children." Shall we also, in the name of "diversity", subsidise schools teaching that the moon is made of green cheese?

Of course, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Jewish Britons can rightly complain that the state has long funded Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. But the proper remedy is not to extend state patronage from Christianity to other superstitions; rather, it is to implement a complete separation of church from state, and more generally to insist that taxpayer-funded institutions have no business propagating dogmas unsupported by evidence.

Moreover, segregating children of Muslim parents from children of Christian parents for separate indoctrination is woefully misguided. Instead, why not bring together students of both backgrounds in a high-school history class to examine the historical evidence bearing on the composition of the New Testament and the Qur'an?

The extreme example of the government's cavalier attitude towards truth and evidence was, of course, the selling of the war in Iraq. Rather than dispassionately using intelligence information to help evaluate policy options, Bush and Blair's operatives pressured their intelligence agencies to find "evidence" - exaggerated, tendentiously interpreted, or simply fraudulent - supporting a predetermined policy. The result is the mess we're now in. Globally, the Iraq war has helped recruit a new generation of militants for al-Qaida; in the Middle East, it has strengthened Iran. All of this could easily have been predicted before the war. And of course it was: not only by leftists, but also by those few conservatives who had not succumbed to the hubris of overestimating their own power.

The bottom line is that all of us - conservative and liberal, believer and atheist - live in the same real world, whether we like it or not. Public policy must be based on the best available evidence about that world. In a free society each person has the right to believe whatever nonsense he wishes, but the rest of us should pay attention only to those opinions that are based on evidence.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, February 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 67 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #135015 by robotaholic on February 28, 2008 at 12:49 pm

standards of competence in homeopathy

- that sounds impossible

Other Comments by robotaholic

2. Comment #135022 by Nails on February 28, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Sound reasoning.
it doesn't look good for us in the UK at the moment, complimentary mediceine and faith schools may well be a recepie for disaster.

Only yesterday, I was listening to the radio and a woman called in about the minor tremor we experienced. She said she thought it was a ghost, and hadn't considered the posibility of an earthquake.....

Our schools need to teach more science and less religion, simple as.

Other Comments by Nails

3. Comment #135032 by 42nd on February 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm

The most ironic thing about homeopathy is that it is perfectly possible for science to accept it even if we don't know how it works. Only thing required is for someone to demonstrate that it, in fact, works. That's what double blind testing is all about. Homeopaths are ,unfortunately, unable even to do that. People who accuse scientist of being arrogant keep forgetting that WE accepted penicillin even thought it is just a freakin' fungi. And why? Because it had been proven to work.

Other Comments by 42nd

4. Comment #135053 by Gymnopedie on February 28, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Someone in the US (and eventually every nation) needs to get the ball rolling in getting stricter policy of practicing/selling medicine. Goofball products shouldn't be able to be sold and distributed making blatantly false or completely unproven claims. Why the hell is that so hard to do? And why do insurance agencies pay for pseudoscience in the forms of acupuncture, homeopathy, etc... From an economic stand point, I don't see how it is to their advantage. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about insurance policy can clear that up.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

5. Comment #135055 by Duff on February 28, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Let's all join the war on the side of science against the stone aged goat milkers.

Other Comments by Duff

6. Comment #135056 by octopus on February 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

...the NHS will introduce bloodletting...

Hmmm...perhaps IR would be better at this...

Other Comments by octopus

7. Comment #135059 by Ian Bamlett on February 28, 2008 at 1:40 pm

O/T

People who accuse scientist of being arrogant keep forgetting that WE accepted penicillin even though it is just a freakin' fungi. And why? Because it had been proven to work.

That's an interesting train of thought to me. What else is out there that has been proven to work, but for which, lets say, no scientific explanation of how it works currently exists? Anything outside of medicine?

Sorry for the OT I just thought that aside by 42nd was intriguing.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

8. Comment #135070 by Forti on February 28, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I have only two words to add: If only.

Other Comments by Forti

9. Comment #135112 by Gymnopedie on February 28, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Just to be clear, the mechanism by which penicillin works is extremely well understood now.

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

10. Comment #135114 by ianmkz on February 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm

From New Scientist 02 Feb 2008

Straight-talking homeopaths

THANKS to Alex Gough for pointing us in the direction of FairDeal Homeopathy, online purveyors of homeopathic remedies. Their website is intriguing, and not at all what you might expect.

"Homeopathy is not a substitute for evidence-based medicine and proper medical opinion," it states flatly. It goes on to argue that insofar as homeopathy "works", it works through "a complicated interaction with the human body and mind known as the 'placebo effect'".

"What conditions can FairDeal Homeopathy treat*?" is the next question. The asterisk refers to a note at the bottom of the page saying "*'Treat' in no way implies 'cure'". As for the answer: "FairDeal homeopathy," we are told, "can be used to treat any self-limiting condition." Such conditions are defined as "ones that, if left alone, will get better anyway".

Is this website a spoof? When Gough asked the owners they were most offended. "A spoof?" they replied. "Tsk tsk! We dispatch homeopathic remedies* the same working day! Real pills! In real little bottles and everything! How authentic do you want us to be?" Once again, a note at the bottom of their email explains the asterisk: "*No curative properties implied. Guaranteed as effective as all other homeopathic remedies. May taste of sugar."

If you would like to purchase a FairDeal remedy for one of your self-limiting conditions, go to www.fdhom.co.uk and place your order, which will cost you only Â£4.99.

According to the "Testimonials" section of the website, such a remedy certainly worked for a Mr S. Scott: "I ordered your product to help treat a mild cold that I was experiencing and that evening I began to feel much better. By the time your product arrived I was nearly fully cured. I cannot recommend this enough, thank you FairDeal Homeopathy."

Other Comments by ianmkz

11. Comment #135127 by Quine on February 28, 2008 at 2:55 pm

"I ordered your product to help treat a mild cold that I was experiencing and that evening I began to feel much better. By the time your product arrived I was nearly fully cured. I cannot recommend this enough, thank you FairDeal Homeopathy."

Thank you, ianmkz

Other Comments by Quine

12. Comment #135133 by clodhopper on February 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm

The sooner that church and state are irrevocably seperated in this country the better.

The following quote is from a 68 page document (Fit For Mission) circulating all schools in our diocese. Can someone else please read it coz I really have to pinch myself to believe this stuff is going on....but it is. You can find it here:http://www.lancasterrcdiocese.org.uk/mission review/school-report.pdf

"The secular world portrays faith as irrational, not based on evidence or open to argument.
However, as Pope John Paul II highlighted in his
encyclical 'Fides et Ratio' [Faith and Reason],while they are not the same thing, faith and reason are far from incompatible. Reason is a natural gift that enables us to grasp the
realities of the world around us â€" the mysteries of Nature â€" and faith is a supernatural
gift that enables us to grasp with certainty the deeper realities that are greater than our
minds â€" the mysteries of God."

Other Comments by clodhopper

13. Comment #135153 by chrisslattery42 on February 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Moreover, segregating children of Muslim parents from children of Christian parents for separate indoctrination is woefully misguided.

This sentence really stood out for me when I read the article. Looks like Richard's consciousness raising about children and religion is working.

Other Comments by chrisslattery42

14. Comment #135159 by Frankus1122 on February 28, 2008 at 3:46 pm

I've wondered about this for a while now and was curious as to how long it would take for this to reach a head.
I think the alternative medicine route is the best way to attack the irrationality out there. At least with medicine you have something real to deal with. You can prove whether something works or not.
This has been done with prayer. It has been proven fairly conclusively -IMO- that intercessary prayer does not work.
This could be the thin edge of the wedge for rationality in other areas.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

15. Comment #135167 by stevecaldwell on February 28, 2008 at 4:05 pm

I've read that there are no safe and effective "alternative" medical treatments.

Once you prove that the "alternative" medical treatment is safe and effective using the appropriate double-blind controls, it's no longer an alternative treatment.

It becomes a part of regular medical science at this point.

Other Comments by stevecaldwell

16. Comment #135195 by Frankus1122 on February 28, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Here's an idea:

The NHS conducts a sound, double-blind, airtight, scientific experiment to test whether or not homeopathy works.

Then go with the results.
If it works statistically better than the placebo then it gets funded. If not, not.

Or am I missing something?

Why, why, why has this not been done already?

Other Comments by Frankus1122

17. Comment #135196 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Gymnopedie,
The FDA is has launch a new initiative to define and oversee supplements like herbs and vitamins (which is currently not law). You can go to the FDA website to read about it =). Okay, and about acupuncture and alternative medicines...I have absolutely never heard of insurance companies supporting these, insurance also won't cover chiropractors. If you come across an insurance company that does I would be extremely surprised. I've never heard of such a claim. However, I have heard of doctors doing "mild" acupuncture for various reasons, I want to roll my eyes. But, I've never ever met a doctor in my state that claimed he practiced any type of acupuncture interventions. If I do run across one I would be extremely weary of the ethics of such a person. I don't even think it has a medical diagnosis that it would be correlated. If anyone knows differently I would love to hear about it so that I can educate myself and patients.

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

18. Comment #135200 by agg on February 28, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ianmkz, I loved it. Do you know if they actually go through with orders placed on their site?

I started to purchase a "remedy" for "intolerance of pseudo-scientific rubbish" and their system suggested Chloralum Remedy (Single Dose) after which it sent me to the paypal site. I stopped after that but I am still tempted to actually place an order, just to see if they would go through with it. If so, I somehow expect them to send a big pamphlet attempting to pour some reason in the poor customer's brain.

I also love their slogan: Nothing acts as well as FairDeal Homeopathy.

Other Comments by agg

19. Comment #135214 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 6:09 pm

but estimates range from Â£50m to Â£450m. Granted, that's a tiny fraction of the Â£92bn NHS budget, but it's still money that could give thousands of cancer patients provably effective therapies that are now denied for cost reasons.

My understanding of this type of policy is that it's more of a buffer measure for hypochondriacs and sufferers of minor mental health issues, which congest the health system. Not everyone can afford a good GP or psychiatrist, so alternative 'remedies' could actually be very cost effective, and in minor cases effective for the patient.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

20. Comment #135223 by Geoff on February 28, 2008 at 6:19 pm

agg #18 it definitely works. I merely thought about looking at their website and almost immediately felt better!

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they actually did get orders, though.

Other Comments by Geoff

21. Comment #135250 by Teratornis on February 28, 2008 at 6:50 pm

There will always be a market for alternative medicine as long as scientific medicine remains unable to give everyone perfect health for a life of indefinitely long duration. As it stands, real medicine looks sure to fail every one of us eventually. Even though everyone knows we are going to die, not many people want it to be today.

When real medicine arrives in a primitive culture which has known only witch doctors, most of the primitives quickly abandon witch doctors for real medicine insofar as real medicine works. Where real medicine does not work, they will still turn to witch doctors.

At least homeopathy seems unlikely to be actually toxic to people. I'd be more concerned about the over-prescription of antiobiotics.

I routinely hear people telling me they have a cold or the flu, and they're taking antibiotics for it. I ask them, "Do you have a bacterial infection? You do know that antibiotics are completely useless against viruses, right?"

Colds and flu result from viruses. Giving people antibiotics they don't need only hastens the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It would be better to give these people a homeopathic placebo when there is no cure for the common cold.

I suspect physicians prescribe inappropriate antibiotics because they know patients expect the doctor to do something, and it's easier to write the useless prescription than to educate the patient, who would probably just doctor-shop anyway. Nobody wants to pay the doctor only to hear what their grandmother could have told them. "You have a cold. Get some rest, drink plenty of fluids. If you're not better in a week to ten days, come back here."

Other Comments by Teratornis

22. Comment #135251 by Goldy on February 28, 2008 at 6:54 pm

I routinely hear people telling me they have a cold or the flu, and they're taking antibiotics for it. I ask them, "Do you have a bacterial infection? You do know that antibiotics are completely useless against viruses, right?"

From what I have heard it is routinely given for colds in China.

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #135309 by wundergeist on February 28, 2008 at 8:09 pm

THERE IS NO HOPE!

Convenience sample of four colleagues at lunch. Four professors with PhDs in technical areas.

One reads her horoscope daily and Feng Shueis her office. Takes both seriously. Doesn't believe in God, though. Sadly she's a perfect example of the dumb saying "when you stop believing in God you believe in anything."

Number two believes in Chinese traditional medicine, reflexology, acupuncture, homeopathy. Apparently, anything but actual science.

Me, I'm anti-social, being the rational empiricist of the lot. I've been told many times to accept more diverse points of view.

Number four wins the prize: does not [ok, brace yourself, this is going to be a big one] believe in [have I mentioned her PhD is in psychology?] evolution.

These are professors at a top-tier research school in the united States, teaching undergraduate through phd level courses in technical areas. So, paraphrasing Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the first Beyond Belief conference, the problem is much bigger than we think.

WG

Other Comments by wundergeist

24. Comment #135348 by robotaholic on February 28, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I guess there has to be room in the world for every type of freak and irrational person- I mean hey someone to laugh at... except of course when children are prevented from receiving live saving blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witness parents or when children aren't immunized for Polio due to their parents distrust of the western Christian's obvious plot to steralize the Muslim...(starts laughing hysterically) coo-koo

Other Comments by robotaholic

25. Comment #135354 by Laurie Fraser on February 28, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Wundergeist: what a beautiful story. Does this confirm (with appropriate statistical safeguards, of course) that three out of four American academics are idiots?

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

26. Comment #135374 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Ok, so Sokal is a finger pointing prick! Sorry, I think my finger flung out there. Redacted. But, let me just read this one more time when he says,

Rather than dispassionately using intelligence information to help evaluate policy options, Bush and Blair's operatives pressured their intelligence agencies to find "evidence" - exaggerated, tendentiously interpreted, or simply fraudulent - supporting a predetermined policy. The result is the mess we're now in. Globally, the Iraq war has helped recruit a new generation of militants for al-Qaida; in the Middle East, it has strengthened Iran

I love how he unflinchingly blames Bush and Blair for Al-Qaida. Like these militants are some innocent victims defending their right to kill their own people and invade other countries. Ha ha ha. I DID NOT, agree with the war to begin with. I don't agree with the war now. But strengthening Iran, please. America is in a PERFECT place to control Iran. We are surround the "effing" country. Weapons of mass destruction? Who knows, we'll never know. I think it is very probable he did have something. Does that equate invading Iraq. Fuck no. Does anyone really feel sorry for Hussein? You know, Bush, in my opinion is about as stupid as they come, but blaming him and Blair for al-Qaida is again, refocusing the blame on those who don't deserve it. It is reasonable to say that al-Qaida is evil because IT is evil. And, I AM GOING TO GET HATE COMMENTS ANY MINUTE, when Bush declared war the plan should have continued to bomb the fuck out of Iraq and get the fuck out. It sounds heartless, it is a bit a heartless, but Bush has actually tried to be nice to these people to the demise of our own soldiers. For a time of war, I think he is being too nice. Either be willing to wage it or leave it the fuck alone (I am of the mind to NOT wage it). I believe it also note worthy to mention that America bomb the Hell out of Japan and Germany. Both countries poor prior to American invasion. But now, post bomb, they are among the richest countries in the world. Does this correlate, I believe it has influences. Does it make it right, probably not. But, I don't think the answer lies in this paper. Sorry, let predicted hate comments pour in...perhaps I will learn something.

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

27. Comment #135375 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 10:15 pm

Sorry, let predicted hate comments pour in...perhaps I will learn something.

Your too cute for hate, how about pity?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

28. Comment #135378 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 10:20 pm

ooooo, nice blow, if I do say so myself

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

29. Comment #135379 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Again, I am not for this war. But war is not nice. I'd like to get the fuck out. I'm just saying, if you are going to go against everyone to have this chaos then freakin' do it. Don't pussy foot around and pretend you are in one. That's all. It's a double edge sword for which I have no other configuration in my brain. I've been around and around trying to know the best possible outcome. When I began reading about past wars, these are my present conclusions. But Blair and Bush = al-qaida... It is really easy to say, "We/you should never have gone into Iraq." He did though, so what now?

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

30. Comment #135381 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Again, I am not for this war. But war is not nice. I'd like to get the fuck out. I'm just saying, if you are going to go against everyone to have this chaos then freakin' do it. Don't pussy foot around and pretend you are in one.

I can understand your sentiment, if only life were that simple.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

31. Comment #135386 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Then what are your thoughts LoreinRyan? Because all I hear from people here, there, and everywhere is say,"It's bad." Well, yeah, it IS bad. That is a true statement but it is not a solution.

I would say that I am at least of average intelligence. As far as this war goes, it makes no sense to me. Again, we're there, it is done, its happening, what now? Impeach Bush? Love to...didn't happen.

However, one GOOD thing came out of this. I think after Bush got elected a 2nd time, the reports of voters between 18 and 25 are of record numbers. Perhaps the youth here have learned a powerful, costly lesson.

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

32. Comment #135392 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 10:42 pm

I do believe a large percentage of the war in Iraq has to do with oil, and of course, control of oil prices. I think, on the humanitarian side, that Saddam should've been removed, as he was. As for bombing Iraq, well, al-qaida (and terrorists in general) is too small and evasive a group to just bomb 'n' leave, to many innocents would've been killed - a international relations nightmare. So, just considering those few points I tend to have a bit more sympathy for Bush's decisions. Not that I agree with it. It's a complex war. It's a tough question.

EDIT: I like Hitchens on this subject. Lastly, IMHO, being overrun by fanatical Muslims bent on world domination for Allah is almost enough justification for some sort of military pressure in that region. (will be ducking hate comments:))

Other Comments by LorienRyan

33. Comment #135399 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:01 pm

wundergeist

So, paraphrasing Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the first Beyond Belief conference, the problem is much bigger than we think.

I am in England. You are not joking! You wouldn't believe how "hidden" the problem is here. I am discovering people almost daily, some educated, articulate people, who do not believe in evolution. I had thought it was confined to the weirdo evangelicals, JWs and the non-westernised Muslims.

I was wrong.

I was worried before, now I am really scared! I am starting to feel like a character in "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers". I am talking to someone about evolution, someone who looks normal and bright and educated and they look at me and say, "Evolution is only a theory though...." Music from "The Twilight Zone"

Aaaaggghhhhh!!!

Other Comments by PJG

34. Comment #135404 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Just as an example, my husband was talking to someone about his concern that a certain British University was allowing anti-evolution propaganda to be given out from a display on their campus. He said he was planning to write to some of the Heads of Departments there.

"Well, you know, don't you", said the man he was speaking to, "that the Head of Thermodynamics there is a creationist". I am talking about a mainstream British University with a good reputation.

I wonder if they would allow "educational" information to leave the campus that informed people that the chemical formula for water was CH4? It is as bad as that and yet no-one is making a fuss about it because it involves "faith".

Other Comments by PJG

35. Comment #135406 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 11:14 pm

Anyone interested in this!!!!!

CHEMISTRY FOR AROMATHERAPISTS WORKSHOP - THURSDAY 3RD APRIL 2008

VENUE - THE EVRON CENTRE, JOHN STREET, FILEY, NORTH YORKSHIRE

10 am - 4 pm

Cost - Â£80

This workshop counts as 6 hours CPD credits

The above workshop covers chemistry as utilised by aromatherapist starting with the basic atom, molecules and working through all the functional groups associated with essential oil chemistry including the therapeutic properties of each group and their application in therapeutic interventions.

The workshop covers Empirical or Molecular Formula, Constitutional or Rational Formula , Graphic or structural formula, Simplified formula (without hydrogen atoms) and Basic, also without carbon atoms.

The course also covers:-

single and double bonds
saturation
chemical pathways - the Mevalonic acid and Shikimic acid pathways
chain and ring building blocks
isomers
There will be time to work on practical activities building three dimentional molecular models as a visual aid for students.

Refreshments of tea, coffee and water are included in the cost of the workshop (lunch is not included)

EDIT: From http://www.suelincoln.co.uk/

Other Comments by PJG

36. Comment #135407 by JuxtaMonkey on February 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm

LOL...Somehow Hitchens can say something and put fresh words to something and shine a completely different light on something that makes one have to say, wow, hadn't though about it that way. Although, sometimes Hitchens can be quite, well, blunt. I fear the 'confictions' he tends to underline. That being said though, he is still one of my favorite authors with a great deal to teach.

As far as the war. That's all I can come with as well. I am still not convinced on the whole oil thing. Though it does give a reason. Was it the primary motivation though? Maybe, I certainly haven't ruled it out. I'm just not convinced yet. I see your point on my simplistic outlook. It is in this case. I just don't understand. Ever heard of Gaslighting? A type of psychological abuse? Ever read any books on psychological abuse? Interesting stuff. You have to wonder if this administration, any administration, uses these tactics. "Are you thinking what I'm thinking Pinky?" Thanks for your thoughts ;) Makes me feel good I am not crazy =)

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

37. Comment #135408 by Richard Morgan on February 28, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Juxtamonkey :

Bush has actually tried to be nice to these people to the demise of our own soldiers

I'm going to be honest with you - it broke my heart to read this hateful remark.
"to be nice to these people"? Are you serious when you say that?

when Bush declared war the plan should have continued to bomb the fuck out of Iraq and get the fuck out.

Bomb the fuck out of Iraq? I suppose you don't realise that this sort of monstrous Rambo-type attitude doesn't help improve the global reputation of the "average" American". Too many people expect to hear you saying stuff like that. Thousands of Iraqi women and children having the "fuck" bombed out of them?
I don't "hate" you juxtamonkey, but these brutal remarks make me want to weep...

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

38. Comment #135412 by wundergeist on February 28, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Laurie Fraser (#135354):

I wouldn't want to extrapolate from such a small convenience sample. I believe the problem is not the lack of intelligence, rather the attitude some educated people have with respect to knowledge outside their area of expertise. Dawkins described a creationist geologist in The God Delusion that simultaneously believes in Young Earth creationism and on 100,000 year old oil deposits. When I see a professor of statistics fall into post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, I know that it cannot be simple ignorance or stupidity. At least not just.

The problem with many academics who are knowledgeable and smart is that they have no intellectual curiosity so they fall prey to bad ideas in anything outside their area of expertise. Shermer explains his better by [paraphrased]: smart people believe stupid things because they use their intelligence to defend positions they arrived at by non-smart reasons.

W

Other Comments by wundergeist

39. Comment #135413 by MaxD on February 28, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Hey JuxtaMonkey may I recommend Fiasco by Thomas Ricks as the essential text on the Iraq war and the run up to the war. It highlights all the errors and hubris that has gone into the intervention in Iraq.

Other Comments by MaxD

40. Comment #135414 by Jon_Sociologist on February 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm

Comment #135114 by ianmkz :

That was a good website. Probably too good: I suspect that it is well disguised enough that many people miss the fact that it's satirical. I particularly liked this one from the products section:

there are neither actual medical effects, nor active ingredients in the remedies!

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

41. Comment #135415 by LorienRyan on February 28, 2008 at 11:41 pm

You have to wonder if this administration, any administration, uses these tactics.

Obsessive patriotism, pandering to the fundie christian majority, Oprah, Fox News... "what are we doing next week Brain?...", it makes Machiavelli look like an Italian pasta dish.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

42. Comment #135422 by AtheistAspy on February 29, 2008 at 12:02 am

Is this article by the same Alan Sokal who duped those postmodernists with an article he "wrote" using random gibberish?

Other Comments by AtheistAspy

43. Comment #135424 by Jon_Sociologist on February 29, 2008 at 12:08 am

All right, I need to throw in my two cents on the Iraq war thing.

I think that people are right for the wrong reasons when they say that the Iraq war fought over oil. America is an oil importing country, and starting a war in the Middle East is a sure way to drive up the cost of oil, thus by invading Iraq, America drove up the price of oil and harmed itself. George Bush, on the other hand, has large amounts of money invested in oil companies. So do most of his friends. Driving up the price of oil benefits these companies. Thus America didn't invade Iraq to gain control of Iraqi oil, but oil was nonetheless a factor. I think another factor was that prior to the 2003 invasion, there was a growing perception that America had in fact accomplished nothing in the 1991 Gulf War. Thus both daddy's image and America's image were suffering from the growing consensus that the U.S. lost the "first" Gulf War. If someone says you lost a fight, the childish first response is to prove that you can beat up the person (or in this case country) who you supposedly lost to.

However, Juxtamonkey raises a good point. Demonstrating that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq doesn't help us very much, with the question of what to do now. If the Afghan-Soviet Union conflict is any indicator, then we can expect that if the U.S. withdraws without actually winning, then there will be a lot of suddenly unemployed experienced terrorists and militants that will scatter to the four winds and bring destruction death and terror with them. Keep in mind Osama got his start in just this fashion. Quite frankly being a Canadian, thus being from a country that was smart enough to avoid that fiasco, I would prefer to see the Iraqis and the American soldiers dying to keep these militants up on their quota of blood and death. The alternative is seeing a lot more attacks like 9/11 Madrid, and London, and some of those attacks may happen here, or wherever you guys live, and everywhere else. Declaring victory and leaving will have severe consequences this time. And while many leftists in the West love all muslims no matter how many innocent Israeli or American civilians they kill, those muslims don't love you and some of them will kill you if they can unless you convert.

It would seem obvious that Bush shouldn't have invaded, but since he did, what are we going to do about it? The only alternative seems to be keeping troops in Iraq and hoping that the U.S. military actually manages to suppress the rebellion and somehow manages to set up a stable government. That or watch a wave of experienced terrorists ply their trade, from bases in a country that, unlike Afghanistan, actually has resources.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

44. Comment #135426 by Roland_F on February 29, 2008 at 12:10 am

Here are the reasons for the invasion of Iraq from the first hand source the NeoCons who are ruling since GWB took office.
In short, the war is not about the bad boy Saddam, not about Iraqi Oil it's all about pax Americana: Global World dominance.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

being nice to Iraqis by troops staying longer

The death toll based on higher mortality rate was already last year estimated by the hundred thousand, plus 2 Million refuges. The higher mortality rate is a statistical method of increased death rate, so it also includes death because simple infections causes death because missing medicine, increased stress in a war torn country, no access to clean drinking water, spread of diseases etcâ€¦ no only direct war casualties and suicide attacks.

Bush & Blair = Al Qaida

At least the war in Iraq is the best recruitment advertising Al Qaida has hoped for.

Other Comments by Roland_F

45. Comment #135438 by hungarianelephant on February 29, 2008 at 1:13 am

Frankus1122 - Why, why, why has this [double-blind study of homeopathy] not been done already?

Because the nature of homeopathy's claims mean that a sensible study design would mean a huge study, and a huge study would be unbelievably expensive.

And because the whole thing would point out the idiocy of a system in which patients are given an average of 8 minutes and one prescription per visit. While Whitehall mandarins don't mind spending money, they do not like their system looking stupid.

Also what Teratornis said (21 / 135250).

And I'm not going to be drawn on Iraq. I'm not.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

46. Comment #135444 by AndreD on February 29, 2008 at 1:24 am

On the Iraq issue:

I was against the invasion at the start due to the fact that Saddam was really the only secular voice in the region, and would have continued to be a good person to support for any proxy war that might take place against Iran (or another Islamic country).

Now that he has been deposed and Iraq is full of extremists, I think the US and allies need to stay so as to keep the country in the hands of the US, instead of letting it fall into the hands of Iran or another extremist group.

EDIT: I should also mention that I don't think the Gulf War was a good idea either, support for Saddam should have been continued right though (which would like have made him even more secular).

Other Comments by AndreD

47. Comment #135448 by IanG on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 am

Frankus 1122

The NHS conducts a sound, double-blind, airtight, scientific experiment to test whether or not homeopathy works.

I would heartily support your excellent suggestion, which I take to be a proposal that we shut the world's homeopaths in a darkened, airtight box and then wait awhile and see what happens.

Teratornis

I suspect physicians prescribe inappropriate antibiotics because they know patients expect the doctor to do something, and it's easier to write the useless prescription than to educate the patient, who would probably just doctor-shop anyway. Nobody wants to pay the doctor only to hear what their grandmother could have told them. "You have a cold. Get some rest, drink plenty of fluids. If you're not better in a week to ten days, come back here."

Other contributions in this thread suggest that you may be overoptimistic about the level of scientific understanding of some of the medical profession. Richard Dawkins writes, in the introduction to the new edition of The Blind Watchmaker,

If more doctors understood Darwinism, humanity would not now be facing a crisis of antibiotic resistance.

Other Comments by IanG

48. Comment #135464 by Dr Nev on February 29, 2008 at 2:17 am

Continuing on the Iraq issue: I recommend visiting www.gregpalast.com and highly recommend his book "Armed Madhouse". In my view it is all about continuing to keep the middle east in a permanent state of turmoil (which when you think about it isn't that hard to do anyway!). The Greedy Saudis, Daddy Bush and Junior had to overthrow Saddam as he was fooling around with the output of Iraqi Oil and upsetting OPEC. Iraq has a very large amount of crude and the big boys - US and the Saudis don't want it to be tapped as they have a nice deal making big dollars. Refineries are not running at full capacity it's not about limited oil it's about we've got the stuff coming out our ears and it's not worth as much so we control the output which keeps the price up! Keeps Halliburton (Dick Cheney) very happy indeed. Keeps the Saudis really happy and naturally keeps us all very unhappy!! Even here in New Zealand we have oil offshore in the southern ocean, we've known about it since the 70's but Shell won't allow drilling! - Not enough profit can be made at the moment! It's all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the conflict in the middle east comes in very handy indeed.

Other Comments by Dr Nev

49. Comment #135475 by nalfeshnee on February 29, 2008 at 2:38 am

My comment on this comment:

"However, one GOOD thing came out of this. I think after Bush got elected a 2nd time, the reports of voters between 18 and 25 are of record numbers. Perhaps the youth here have learned a powerful, costly lesson."

Any lesson the US youth might have learned pales into insignificance compared to what the rest of the world has had to suffer.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

50. Comment #135478 by Steve Zara on February 29, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #135195 by Frankus1122

Here's an idea:

The NHS conducts a sound, double-blind, airtight, scientific experiment to test whether or not homeopathy works.

Then go with the results.
If it works statistically better than the placebo then it gets funded. If not, not.

Or am I missing something?

What a co-incidence. I happen to be working on such an experiment right now.

Bother, you have distracted me. I was about to label one test-tube "homeopathic solution" and the other "distilled water with nothing in it"... I have forgotten which is which. how am I going to tell the difference?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last