Homeopathic Tutu

I have a medicinal tutu. Mine is pink and fluffy. I also wear my tutu with a top hat, a clown nose and sometimes handcuffs. 

My tutu has helped cure my fear of small places. For example I used to be frightened that people would crowd around me in elevators. Now people don't get on an elevator with me. If they do, they stay far away. 

I have similar tutu's for sale. You don't need  a prescription as they are over the counter (some are under the counter in a box labeled 'ballerina dreams'). We guarantee the following medical properties.

Cures shyness: Few people will get close enough for you to have a conversation.

Cures claustrophobia: Adds an extra 6 inches of space all around you and at least 10 feet of space if you are in a crowd of people. 

Cures acrophobia: When you look down, all you see is tutu. Caution: side effects include falling off cliffs.

Facebook Pseudoscience

Did you see the news about Facebook manipulating our emotions? The horror!  It is surprising too because that means Facebook is the same as politicians, advertisers, narcissists, and your mother.

Here at the Boys Books offices, we all canceled out Facebook accounts. We re-activated our accounts a couple hours later because many of our friends thought we had been abducted by aliens.

The use of manipulation has a long tradition in science, especially in psychology. Psychology is both science and pseudoscience because our brains are messy. The pseudoscience is double trouble because psychologists have messy brains and think up messy experiments to prove their messy ideas.

What's the point? We are manipulating you by manipulating your belief in the manipulation of Facebook.

Experiment

Tell your friends that you are quitting Facebook because of your friends use too many emoji. Sign it of course with a sad emoji of your choice.

Questions

1. How many respond with a happy emoji?
2. How many quit with you?
3. Has your court-ordered psychologist prescribed a higher dose of antidepressants and are you surprised that your psychologist has been monitoring your Facebook posts?

Interesting pseudoquestion

I got a question: Might sound crazy, but is it posible we are causing our disasters by launching rockets?

Absolutely. Ever since ancient man chucked a stone at the Moon we have suffered plague, earthquakes, and violent storms because we got slightly closer to the Moon's influence. Before that we couldn't blame it on rockets because we were not smart enough to chuck a rock at the Moon.

Post comment

Cancel

Homeopathy Explained: it's a slapping good time!

Homeopathic Medicine - Slap happy Pseudoscience 

How to make a Homeopathic medicine:

1. Add one part poison to 100 parts water.
2. Slap the container ten times with a stick wrapped with leather and stuffed with horse hair.
3. Repeat this procedure by taking one part of the solution and adding to 100 parts water.
4. Repeat 12 times to create a one in a trillion dilution.
5. Price at the same or higher than a legitimate drug.

You are now a homeopath!

This is the same for almost any homeopathic remedy. The only differences are the poisons used, the dilution medium, which can be water, alcohol, or lactose (milk sugar). The only hard part is getting your slapping stick and a suitable poison.

If you are having a problem locating a suitable slapping stick, turn off 'safe search' on your Google browser and look for leather slappers. You'll find enough to start your own homeopathic drug company!

Poisons are a lot harder to find. Here at Boys Books, we frown on poisons. A big, sad, clown frown. Instead, try the experiment with food coloring and a flavoring like mint or vanilla. Another good ingrediant is sugar (classified as a very slow acting poison).  Try all three to test for color, taste, and effect. For example, if you use water, red food coloring, vanilla extract, and sugar, you should be able to create a homeopathic remidy that cures sunburns, tastes like chocolate cake, and will make you skinny as homeopathic remedies have the opposite effect of their ingredients.

Homeopathy is very modern. Here are a couple other important medical discoveries plus homeopathy so you will see how it relates to modern medicine:

• 1897 Aspirin
• 1862 Germ Theory
• 1847 Hand Washing
• 1796 Homeopathy

Homeopathy is obviously a superior medicine because it predates those modern discoveries like aspirin, germ theory and washing your hands to prevent the spread of disease. Yes, homeopathy was created before those money grubbing guys like Pasture, Bayer, or Soap (I assume that's who invented soap). That's right, homeopathy was invented to fight the high cost of healthcare before there was high-priced healthcare.

What Scientists Say

Real scientists have a lot of bad news for homeopaths (sounds like a type of serial killer, doesn't it). First is that diluting a substance never makes it stronger or more active. Less is less, not more. The only thing that diluting a poison does is make it less poisonous. In fact, that was sort of the point of homeopathy. At the time it was invented, doctors, snake oil salesmen, and the local chemist were experimenting with poisons as therapy.

Poison is a useful drug. Poisons, in the correct quantity can kill parasites or cancer. In the early world, there were a lot of parasites! So, a happy experimental result in a cure which is followed by a over reaction. If it cured one thing, why not try it in other places? Sadly in the early days before controlled experiments, any discovery could lead to irrational exuberance. The intend of the homeopath was to first find less of the poison that might cure, but not harm. Good intentions, but at a certain point, less is not less, but nonexistent. Now things get interesting.

The homeopaths kept getting good results. The homeopaths of course take a great deal of credit in making a discovery in chemistry, but it is really a discovery in human psychology. Homeopaths had discovered the placebo effect.

The Placebo Effect

If you give someone a medicine, they will react to it as medicine, even if it is fake medicine. Tell them a medicine will make their headache go away and indeed, it might. The brain can release a lot of chemicals in response to suggestion. If you switched out someone's aspirin for something that looked like aspirin, they might not notice. At least for a while. The brain eventually stops reacting like it is taking aspirin. 

Where does the placebo effect come from? There are a lot of theories, but the simplest is that we remember what certain medicines do to us and get into that same state of mind. Just like Pavlov's dogs, instead of salivating, we feel better. 

Ever notice that you feel better immediately after taking a drug? It is actually impossible for many drugs to act instantly. For example, standard aspirin takes 30 minutes or more to begin working, yet we feel relief right away because we are remembering how well it worked. If we are given a sugar pill and told it is twice as strong as aspirin, we feel even better in part because we imagine the effect of aspirin and our imagination boosts the memory.

The Argument Against Arguing Against Homeopathy

In Canada, folks are getting angry about homeopathy. Follow the link to read a rebuttal of a letter to the editor which is a rebuttal of another opinion piece against homeopathy. In the letter, responding to the letter, responding to the article, a Mr Marc Carrier,  makes hay about the psuedoscience of homeopathy. The content is of course, like most anti-pseudoscience retoric, falls upon deaf ears (as does most writing unless someone reads it aloud). More specifically. the author makes many mistakes and does not take into account basic tenants of pseudoscience that would effectively persuade their audience to abandon their ways.

The staff at Boys Books is always surprised by anti-homeopathy rhetoric on several fronts. First, arguments against pseudoscience would be more effective if diluted. The entire response would convince the homeopaths to abandon their ways if you had just one comma. However, since homeopathy is based on diluting poisons that create similar symptoms as the disease, the argument would need to be 'for' the suspension of rational thought, rather than 'against' it. In other words, the context of the comma is important to the cure.

Next is that the best arguments are anecdotal. There is no science behind the homeopathic cures, of course not! Grandma took homeopathic remedies, and it did not work for her! No reason why it would definitely work for you now.  Why, because grandma didn't believe in homeopathy and you do! That's just science! We know it is because we used the exclamation points!

The next step is to explain homeopathy in the context of history. Did you know that Homeopathy was invented because doctors at the time were prescribing poisons? Poisons including lead and strychnine  were used. We don't really know why, maybe because poisons could kill parasites or a dead patient is a cured patient? In fact, doctors of that day did not know about germ theory, surgeons didn't even wash their hands.

Finally is that most anti-homeopathic arguments summarize the homeopathic process. Instead, they should be much more descriptive to allow their readers to fully understand how utterly modern the drug preparation process is compared to even today's chemistry intensive process of modern medicine. Here is a quick summary of what the proper homeopathic label should look like:

1. Find a poison that duplicates symptoms of a disease or something that cures the disease or even sound like it might cure the disease or just a cool name (basically anything, there are no rules).
2. Dilute one part poison to 100 parts of mixing medium (water, alcohol, or milk sugar).
3. Strike the mixing container with a leather strap stuffed with horse hair 5 times.
4. Dilute one part of mixture to 100 parts of of the mixture medium.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there is no possibility of a biological effect from the poison.
6. Price marked up for a lot of money because it has been scientifically proven that when you have a higher price.

The next step is challenge the homeopathic hatters to an experiment. If homeopathy works, prove it! Start with a beer colored with a few drops of green food coloring. Then, using the technique described above, create homeopathic green beer. If by definition a dilution of a poison, and alcohol is a poison, can cure a symptom (in this case intoxication, then a homeopathic beer should make you sober. Because of the green food coloring, it should also make you drunk as an Irishman kissing the Blarney Stone.

There you go! All done. Everyone will know that Homeopathy will soon surpass real medicine and nobody will be under-hydrated again!

I still believe in pseudoscience!

I still believe in pseudoscience! My horoscope still seems right, even when I read Taurus instead of Aries. My holistic medicines work wonderfully because the placebo effect is much stronger than not taking any fake medication. My back is in better shape because I got out of my comfy chair and did the long walk across the parking lot to my chiropractor who has furniture that clicks and snaps so that the sound of my back cracking is a simulation and won't really hurt me or heal me. I feel more calm after my acupuncturist because of the 45 minutes of deep meditation that is only possible when you can't move because you have more needles than porcupine and my acupuncturist gives me extra strong homeopathic medicines at only twice the cost of Whole Foods, which makes them much more effective placebos. 

I believe in ghosts because I don't know any personally, but I am sure they are nice people. I also know that heaven and hell are real because I have not visited either one, but plan on visiting heaven and Antartica because I have heard they are both cool places. Just because you have not been to a place or know a person or gone to a Lock Ness petting zoo, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I draw the line at vaccines as the rumors are that every shot puts a government tracked GPS radio in your blood stream so that big brother can track my every move. I line up for every flu shot because I want to be found when the aliens shoot another plane out of the sky. Same with using credit cards instead of cash. If I bump my head and start wondering around, the police can find me by my trail of Starbucks receipts (I hear $20 dollar bills have GPS trackers, but that's a lot of $20s to cary just for a head injury.

I also believe that climate change is totally fake. I know global warming is fake because why would my dental hygienist lie? In fact, I believe most things I hear. Everyone that is branded as a conspiracy theorist, political fear monger and more because they have no agenda or malice in their hearts. Conflict of interest is a myth and more power to the people that fight science because there is no university degree in pseudoscience.

Yes, I still believe in pseudoscience. Use all the logical fallacies you want to attack my opinions, I will still believe. The one thing I can say for certain, if I change my blind belief in the great pillars of pseudoscience, I'll feel stupid. I'll feel ashamed that I could believe in those things. Unless its funny that I do. Unless I can laugh at myself. Then, maybe I can chicle at the CVS that no longer sells cigarets, but still sells homeopathic medicine and untested herbs. Then I'll take a sip of tea in my back yard, no longer in fear of poisoned contrails. Maybe I'll spend more time reading the funnies instead of checking my horoscope. Then, maybe...

This blog is in reponse to Why I Stopped Believing in Pseudoscience How a tarot-card-reading, candle-burning teen became a total skeptic.

Pseudoscience that makes scientists want to pay pseudoscientists a retirement pension

The folks at ion are feeding us more material. Hurrah! This tim, they are mankind things a bit more obvious with "10 Pseudo-Science Theories We'd Like to See Retired Forever" also by Annalee Newitz. Today you get a few spoilers! But please read the article on Io9 (They still seem to be coming from the future, which also means that pseudoscience is still alive and kicking at some non-specific futuristic blog website).

Below are the ten. Sadly many of our favorites are missing, but we are willing to take a scientists pension and retire from our pseudoscientific ways for these gems. We have added our thoughts on the selections, which as you can see, is selected with the scientific rigor of a blogger using a key word search and an ax to grind (what are so many grinding axes and not cutting down trees).

1. "Toxins" - How does this make #1? Everybody knows that the "toxins" are just the tip of the iceberg for a host of hokum.
2. Intelligent Design - Oh, oh, pick on our buddy Ken Ham. To top it all off, I.D. is hardly a Pseudoscience  but actually a plot by Karl 'The Atheist" Rove to get George Bush elected. 
3. Quantum Mysticism - Also known as Quantum Woo, this should have been the top of the list. It is the best of out-there theories. The question is, are our friends at the new age book store both alive and dead before we open the store door and ring the little bell?
4. Homeopathy - This is a good choice too. Especially since it is modern medicine (invented before surgeons washed their hands, germ theory, or penicillin).
5. Polygraphy - Ok, maybe it is steaming pie in a field of boy cows, but the criminals don't know that. Polygraphy is the placebo of crime fighting. Imagine Batman giving homeopathic batarangs! 
6. Baby Genius Programs - This had not occurred to us that someone would put it on their top ten. Yes, perhaps out on a limb unable to hold our weight, but there is a lot of other fruit that is so low hanging, it is in a deep and dark hole in the ground of crazy. Imagine the possibilities of teaching your child to believe in crystal healing or perpetual motion before they are potty trained!
7. Genetic Memory - Scrapping the barrel! The author is obviously confusing this with reincarnation. Speaking of reincarnation, want to go get a burger?
8. The Vaccinations and Autism Hoax - First, anti-vaxers don't think it is a hoax and it cannot be classified as a hoax anyway because incompetent doctors are not purposefully lying to us. The politicians... Well, this is another Republican cause like I.D. isn't it? Besides, the anti-vaxer movement is as dead as the people dying from the diseases that are now spreading through the communities that are not vaccinating.
9. Aliens Built the Ancient World - Everybody knows that aliens didn't build the ancient world. They enslaved the humans to build things like the pyramids and gave us secret knowledge like rope.
10. Phrenology - Who believes in Phrenology? Sure there are a lot of Phrenology heads at Restoration Hardware, but not one psychic that we have ever met practices this ancient art. The last time we heard it mentioned was on the Three Stooges.

Please comment below on your ideas for the pseudoscientist's toolbox. We need more material for the book and maybe a plot suitable for a movies that Oprah is willing to star in.

10 ideas that psuedoscientists wish you would use more

Here at Boys Book of Pseudoscience, we get great ideas from those silly scientists. Scientists are very fond of telling us about how pseudoscientists are perverting science. Case in point is my new source of ideas to help the budding pseudoscience is Io9.

We just found "10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing" by Annalee Newitz. No spoilers! Go read the article on Io9 (We come from the future).

More on these 10 gems soon(er or later).  Until then, please comment below on your ideas for the pseudoscientist's toolbox. We need more material for the book and maybe a plot suitable for a movies that Oprah is willing to star in.

Quantum Stupidity

Quantum Holography

I was reminded today of two theories of the brain that burgle from two sciences, quantum theory and holography. Let's start with quantum.

The theory goes that conciseness arrises from quantum computers in our cells. Further the theory goes, not only are we super computers, but also our brain cells talk to each other via quantum entanglement.

Supposedly there are little tubes in our neurons that act as the quantum computers. A quantum computer does the computation by computing all possible answers at once. Sort of cool. Why add 2+2=4 when it is much faster to add all possible numbers and just pick 4. Strange but true.

Here is the problem: Quantum computing is really quantum stupidity. Our wonderful brains do not compute all possible answers and then pick the result that seems true. On the other hand, we do tend to select the first answer which is likely the silly answer.

Eat a cookie or a carrot, what is better? Cookie!

With quantum computing, you should be able to see all possible futures that can result from either the cookie or the carrot. The cookie of course is governed by quantum mechanics and only has mass when the mass is observed–assuming that when not observed, it is a wave–therefore the cookie is does not exist once it passes your nose. Or, as Richard Feynman put it:

“If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand Mrs. Field's Cookies.”

~ Richard Feynman on Mrs. Field's Cookies

Holographic Cookies

The standard process for creating a hologram imprints the light of each part of an object an all parts of the surface of the holographic surface. Combined with a reference beam, the result is that depending on the angle of your view, the diffraction of  In other words, all the information of a 3D object's picture exists within the pieces of the hologram. If you create a hologram of a cookie and then cut out 1/10th of the hologram and you will still see the cookie in the smaller piece. The smaller piece might be a little fuzzier, but it will still look like the cookie.

If the universe is just a hologram, every piece of the hologram has a piece of cookie in it. Again, eating the cookie or not, you always are eating a cookie–even when eating a carrot.

Ipso Facto Delirium

As the facts show, cookies are a) not really here, and b) everywhere in the universe. So, go ahead and eat that cookie and read another book from Deepak Chopra who is fond of both concepts and cookies.

The Pseudoscience is on Fire, Run!

If you yell fire in a theater, you're are going to get a lot of folks running for the exits.

If the fire alarm goes off in your building, people will finish their coffee first.

If you are in a temporary building, also known as a 'trailer', and there is a tornado siren, you look around for a second or two to see if you have your car keys and then run like a scared little girl for the nearest tornado shelter.

The key reason for the difference between the three different reactions is the context. Context plays a roll in many aspects of life. Context can also lead to misinterpretations of facts and lead to pseudoscience.

In your office, there is always a drill or false alarm due to poor microwave use. We are used to the fire alarm being a cry of wolf. We also don't expect a modern building to really burn very fast. 

In the safety zone of your workplace, we also don't panic very easily. But think back. The first time a fire alarm went off at a 'new' job when someone overcooked the popcorn, you were ready to run out the door! But I am sure you looked around and saw your calm fellow employees drinking their coffee. Their actions may have felt a little odd, but your heart slowed it's pace. Now for any new alarm, you are just as likely to get a fresh cup of coffee for the trip to your fire safety meeting point or muster station.

Context can backfire. Think New Orleans and the hurricane. Too many calm people mucking about, taking their time to get out of town. Nobody panicking means nobody in a hurry and finding reasons not to go at all. Hurricane warnings are like fire alarms in buildings. There are a lot of false alarms or storms that are not as powerful as the warnings. Plus most are in the safety of their homes, increasing their comfort of literally weathering the storm.

Context is another coping mechanism of our lazy brains. We gauge our need for fight or flight from the group we trust and personal experience. Unless you have almost died in a hurricane you are not going to go running out of town. Most would have stayed except for the need for some compliance to authority. 

Think tribes of people and prairie dogs. In either case the members depend on the skills of the watchful or experienced. Why waste your time looking for a hawk when their are others that will spot it first? Imagine looking for a fires, hawks, or other threats all the time? We can only hold a couple of concepts in out head at one time. Some people need to be looking for and gauging the threats so that the rest of us can get on with the other jobs. 

The police are the prairie dogs that spot the hawk. Your fellow workers sipping coffee as the alarm goes off are also hawk watchers. With the coworkers, they haven't really seen a lot of hawks other than a fire marshal or two, but they are part of the collective watchfulness of the tribe. 

We listen when the ones we trust start raising the alarm. This is as dangerous as the possible problem. Sometimes the people you trust are not trustworthy.

Comfort and experience can short circuit the authority figure. You can imagine that the police are not seen as authorities in New Orleans. Fear of looting may even be the bigger motivator of some. If police are seen as ineffective, believing them about evacuation and trusting them to safeguard your possessions, however meager, will fall on the side of self protection.

Where is the pseudoscience? Hold on, I'm thinking.

Oh yeah, the problem is that yelling fire is the same a yelling global warming or financial meltdown. It does not matter how true it is. What causes you to believe is the context and the authority. 

You will not believe much in global warming if you are watching the Discovery Channel while socked in with six feet of snow. You will believe if you are experiencing 101 degrees in December. Context! 

If you are listening to Al Gore, a reasonably respected man, about global warming, you will believe him. He looks like he did his homework. Unless you are a far right republican, his slide show is compelling.  Al Gore is an authority. His slides are also context as they have elements that remind you of your daily experience. You have also heard this before, so add repetition. 

I am not saying yes or no to global warming. I won't say it is pseudoscience. But there are many arguments and out of context facts for and against global warming that are pseudoscience. Even claims of one side or another is practicing pseudoscience, may be just as much pseudoscience. 

Look carefully to avoid the assumptions and not fall for either the context or the authority. Ask yourself why you think something is believable. Does the context influence you? Does the authority influence you?

Imagine you are in your office with the fire alarm blaring. You are grabbing another cup of coffee for the long wait out in the parking lot. Then you see a fireman run past... Will you head to the parking lot a bit faster than normal? Yep, new context and the authority figure in the fireman's attire.

The final word is that many factors cause us to believe in one thing or another. Fires, hurricanes, and even global warming will form beliefs in your mind that depend on their context and authority.

One more thing. First a warning, if you like to read aloud, do not read this in a theater...

FIRE!!!!

Katie Couric the Antivaxer or Telling both sides is great pseudoscience

Katie Couric is a practicing pseudoscientist. As a former morning show mavin, she certainly has the qualifications. Her topic recently was the HPV vaccine.

HPV is a vaccine that prevents the  human papillomavirus. HPV is credited as a source for cancer in women. It is also one of the most common sexually transmitted diseases. So, if you are looking for a candidate of vaccine that could benefit mankind (and of course womankind) HPV vaccine is a good one.

Back to Dr Katie. The topic of her December 4th, 2013 show was on the HPV vaccine and as she promised in her tweet the day before, "We're hoping to tell both sides so parents can make informed decision." Of course, "tell both sides" is our secret code for pseudoscience. Usually, especially when it comes to vaccines, there isn't ever a legitimate "other side" that is worth pitting against science.

Not saying there isn't another side. All vaccines have a risk. You could be allergic to something in the vaccine preparation, like eggs. Your body is of course going to react to the vaccine and your body will learn to recognize and fight against the virus you are being exposed to. These effects are mild an risks very very very low. According to the CDC, "mild side effects included pain where the shot was given, fever, headache, and nausea." Of course, most of these could in fact be nocebo affects because these are common side effects of similar vaccines.

According to Dr Katie's guests, the anecdotal claims include death and other slightly less worse outcomes. These guests were of course highly trained non-doctors. 

Why is this pseudoscience? Simply, the antivaxer claims are non-science. Like on Dr Katie's show, the people that are affected are not statistically significant, except to the ratings of the TV show that they are guests on. Their claims are also usually not exposed to the light of deep examination by experts. Instead, Katie's producers are trolling for the 'other side' of the story and find grieving families that blame the 'establishment' for harm and conspiracy to do harm.

To illustrate what is happening, let's look at aspirin. Did you know that aspirin kills people? That's right! If you take an aspirin, you have a 1 in 6 chance of death by heart attack. Of course, if you don't take aspirin, your odds are also 1 in 6 chance of death by heart attack. That is because we all have a 1 in 6 chance of death by heart attack. This is also known as death by statistics. 

Same goes for vaccines. If we all have a 1 in 6 chance of death by heart attack, the odds are quite high that after getting a vaccine that you die of a heart attack. It is also easy to prove that not getting a vaccine might be the culprit as dead people rarely get vaccinated. Q.E.D. vaccines cause heart attacks. They also cause 1 in 7 to die of cancer and 1 in 160 to die in a car accident. Of course there is a 100% chance that you will die after taking a vaccine because their is no vaccine for death.

The "other side" to vaccines is of course science. Ever since they were first created, they have had a pretty good track record. They have also eliminated or almost eliminated diseases like Polio and Smallpox. Vaccines, to be effective, need to be given to most people. Take for instance, measles. If enough people don't take the vaccine, you easily get an epidemic. It is even worse in Texas where folks don't cotton to being told what to do. At a Texas mega church and surrounding area, there was an outbreak caused by these folks not getting their vaccines. Of course, those that did, did not get measles, though are in eminent danger of slipping and falling in the tub.

Experiment: Cheat Death

Because 1 in 171 people die from falls, you can cheat death. Lie down and stay down. Note: You have a higher chance of death from other sources like diseases caused by a lack of activity.  

Scientists Find Gullibility Center

At long last, we have found the Scientists Find Gullibility Center. Guess what, it is in the brain!

Brain wired for creationism?

Brain wired for creationism?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16687-humans-may-be-primed-to-believe-in-creation.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

Reposting for International Talk Like a Pirate Da

The following is a repost of the last post that has been strung up on the yardarm and translated to Pirate, matey! Translation provided by: http://translate-pirate.com

Climate Change verses th' deniers. Evolution "I'll Dance A Jig!" verses creationism an' intelligent design. Why "Empty Hearted French Poodle!" does this have t' be bout denial or scientific understanding? Why be people called salt-blastedly stupid, incompetent, or worse? 

Belief in hooey be just th' tendency fer a social squadron t' hold a common belief even when thar be no verifyable evidence. Ye "Bilge-Sucking Scum!" don't b'lieve in Intelligent Design (ID) cause it makes sense. Ye b'lieve in ID cause your buddies in th' church or Fox News b'lieve it. ID "Hands Orf Me Booty!" came from cognitive dissonance an' a blitheringly little creativity. When "Smoke 'em if yew got 'em, matey!" fairy tales proved too blunderingly difficult t' sell at school board meetings, someth'n had t' give . Smooth sail'n once ye be us'n th' same science speak as th' science squadron. It "Treacherous Grease Wad!" also helps t' vote in your church buckos. Nobody be incompearned people an' salt-blastedly even scientists. They "Blistering Barnacles!" belie 


Why do ye think ye root fer your home town sports team? Why be th' best? Cause it's your team, your town, your people (blunderbustingly even if they were from out o' town an' be paid many more than yee could count t' throw a ball or slap a puck in said town). This "Yo-HO, me hearties!" be our greatest issue wi' pseudoscientific beliefs. They "Somethn's Foul in the Air!" be social an' thus can only be defanged by destroy'n a person's need t' belong t' a social squadron. Cause o' media we have things bigger an' looser than religion. Look "Blow Me Down!" at climate change which creates a debate where people gravitate t' th' side they best identify wi' rather than examin'n th' facts or trust'n a scientist verses other sources. 

Astern "Get My Cat O' Nine Tails!" t' Climate Change an' Evolution. Do ye b'lieve cause o' th' evidence? Or, be it cause ye know a lot o' people that also b'lieve or consider yourself as part o' th' same social group? Ye e'er written a peer reviewed paper on climate change? Odds be ye have just read some articles or maybe heard Al give his talk. Maybe ye be a Democrat? We don't think it be cause ye be an expert. We "Gar, Where can I find a bottle o'rum?" don't just need facts. When "Ye Ugly Old Barnacle!" did we start believ'n th' Earth be lustily round an' revolved 'unseaworthily round th' Sun? Thar be a lot o' socialization an' a few blitheringly dead heretics. Can ye convince someone t' discard a fantasy? Aye, but ye need t' do more than argue facts. 

A "Heave Ho!" deprogrammer be th' best example, though ablunderingly little more mentally violent an application the challenged, nay just th' belief. Deprogramm'n does have its salt-blastedly good points. Th' fact that th' Fly'n Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist be less than th' doctoral priest an' th' henchmen. Easier "Tha Old Sea Dog!" t' poke holes in someth'n blunderbustingly real rather than a belief. This "Ahoy, Me Hearties! " works both ways which be why scientist be demonized by people that b'lieve in demons. Until "I Needs Ya Gold!" th' social squadron can be changed, no argument, no matter how scientific, will sway th' herd. Thar "Parrot Strangling Slops Barrel!" be a tipp'n point that I don't pretend t' understand, but can be s'n wi' th' Copernican Revolution. Sadly "Where's The Grub!" thar be also a revolution in pseudoscience as can be s'n wi' th' resurgence o' fundamentalists an' politics 'unseaworthily round climate change - or be those both politics? Look aloft 'social proof' on wikipedia. Th' problem be that ye need sheep t' make a flock. How do we create sheep that as a squadron don't b'lieve arguments based on logical fallacies?

Be thar an anti-pseudoscience? Arr thar be. Th' "Rotten Friend Of A Gibbet!" proof be that we can say th' Earth revolves 'carbunculously roundth' Sun an' nobody gets tortured. If "Fish Breathed Waster!" ye know th' secret, comment below! 

Climate Change verses the deniers. Evolution verses creationism and intelligent design. Why does this have to be about denial or scientific understanding? Why are people called stupid, incompetent, or worse?

Belief in hooey is just  the tendency for a social group to hold a common belief even when there is no verifyable evidence. You don't believe in Intelligent Design (ID) because it makes sense. You believe in ID because your buddies in the church or Fox News believe it.

ID came from cognitive dissonance  and a little creativity.  When fairy tales proved too difficult to sell at school board meetings, something had to give . Smooth sailing once you are using the same science speak as the science group. It also helps to vote in your church friends. Nobody is incompetent, just following the groupthink of their peers.

Look at any religion and/or cult. They are populated by learned people and even scientists. They belie

Why do you think you root for your home town sports team? Why is the best? Because it's your team, your town, your people (even if they were from out of town and are paid millions to throw a ball or slap a puck in said town).

This is our greatest issue with pseudoscientific beliefs. They are social and thus can only be defanged by  destroying a person's need to belong to a social group. Because of media we have things bigger and looser than religion. Look at climate change which creates a debate where people gravitate to the side they best identify with rather than examining the facts or trusting a scientist verses other sources.

Back to Climate Change and Evolution. Do you believe because of the evidence? Or, is it because you know a lot of people that also believe or consider yourself as part of the same social group? Have you ever written a peer reviewed paper on climate change? Odds are you have just read some articles or maybe heard Al give his talk. Maybe you are a Democrat? We don't think it is because you are an expert. We don't just need facts.

When did we start believing the Earth was round and revolved around the Sun? There was a lot of socialization and a few dead heretics.

Can you convince someone to discard a fantasy? Yes, but you need to do more than argue facts. A deprogrammer is the best example, though a little more mentally violent an application than we generally accept. The social group has to be challenged, not just the belief. Deprogramming does have its good points. The fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist is less than the doctoral priest and the henchmen.  Easier to poke holes in something real rather than a belief. This works both ways which is why scientist are demonized by people that believe in demons.

Until the social group can be changed, no argument, no matter how scientific, will sway the herd. There is a tipping point that I don't pretend to understand, but can be seen with the Copernican Revolution. Sadly there is also a revolution in  pseudoscience as can be seen with the resurgence of fundamentalists and politics around climate change - or are those both politics? Look up 'social proof' on wikipedia. 

The problem is that you need sheep to make a flock. How do we create sheep that as a group don't believe arguments based on logical fallacies?

Is there an anti-pseudoscience? Apparently there is. The proof is that we can say the Earth revolves around the Sun and nobody gets tortured.  If you know the secret, comment below!

There's Always Another Opinion

Watching the History channel today and the wonderful show, Brad Meltzer's Decoded. Why? Because it is some of the greatest pseudoscience on TV. We must learn from the best!

So, why is this show pseudoscience? One concept: Everybody has an opinion. It is so easy to have an opinion and this show goes out of its way to find the most extreme opinions.  In normal science and historical inquiry, you research and present the evidence that is well tested and confirmed. With opinion, you state your idea and if the evidence does not add up, chalk it up to a conspiracy to hide the truth.

Why base a history show on a set of opinions? Easy, the crazy train is much more fun than plain history.

Let's look at the show on the Statue of Liberty for where they seemed to look more for squirrels with loose nuts than historians. The premiss starts with the statement that there are hidden symbols built into the statue. Of course they did spend about 5 minutes talking with legitimate historians. Nothing exciting. But then they looked for the wacko fringe.

The bizarre circus freaks range from numerologists, someone that believed the statue was the devil, another that believed that the statue represents secret messages to those that would rule the world. Throw in that the artist behind the statue was a freaky mother loving Oedipus sex maniac because he used the face of his mom as inspiration and his girlfriend's body. In our opinion here at Boys Books, the only evidence that added up was the numerologist (they always do).

In the end, the investigators of the Statue of Liberty fond the most important fact, there are a lot of opinions.... Yep, oh and it wasn't the devil, but lucifer (not big L Lucifer, but the little l as in the light bearer.

Science or pseudoscience? Simple way to test: How entertaining was the show? Very entertaining! Must be pseudoscience!

Statue of Liberty. [Internet]. 2011. The History Channel website. Available from: http://www.history.com/shows/brad-meltzers-decoded/episodes/episodes-guide [Accessed 1 Jan 2011].

Placebo of Placebo

Well, I thought we had a little bit of good news to round out the end of the year's pseudoscience news. Basically some scientists tried to see if people knew that they were taking drugs that were fake, would they still work. Glory be, the scheme worked! Here is an article and the paper.

But alas, there is a problem with scientists looking into magical effects. Yep, magical. A pill that does nothing but causes an effect and that is magic, right?

First, credit where credit is due. Orac, a computer best known for his contribution of the Blake's 7 crew, looked close at the paper and saw the flaws. Here is Orac's analysis.

The upshot is that the study unfortunately did what most studies of pseudoscience do, they let the cat out of the bag and that probably skewed the results. First, the advertised ads looking for study participants sounded cool. You always get skewed results when patients think there is something cool going on.  

The second problem was that it was not a double blind study. They either gave the patients placeboes or told the participant to go home and do nothing. A double blind would have had placeboes, a fake placebo (a drug not cleverly labeled 'Placebo' like the one in the study).

Not sure if they should have had people that were told to do nothing.... Seems sort of odd. Back to that cool advert, if you found out you were in the "do nothing" group, wouldn't you go home all depressed and maybe your results would be better than getting a pill bottle labeled 'Placebo' (remember, very cleverly labeled).

Experiment - Placebo Crystals

Time for another great experiment!

1) Head to your favorite purveyor of fine rocks and pick up a few hundred quarts crystals.
2) Create envelopes that will hold the crystal and one of three different notes written thus:

    Note 1: Greetings! You have been selected to take part in an important study. This envelope contains a crystal from a mountain in the Andes near the mystic city of Kolumbunga. It is used as a very powerful placebo. In three days, please send an email to xxxx@xxxx.xxx and tell us if you feel better or worse.

   Note 2: Greetings! You have been selected to take part in an important study. This envelope contains a crystal. It is used as a placebo. In three days, please send an email to xxxx@xxxx.xxx and tell us if you feel better or worse. 

  Note 3: Greetings! You have been selected to take part in an important study. This envelope contains a crystal. In three days, please send an email to xxxx@xxxx.xxx and tell us if you feel better or worse. 

   Note 4: Greetings! You have been selected to take part in an important study. In three days, please send an email to xxxx@xxxx.xxx and tell us if you feel better or worse. 

Put crystals with notes 1, 2 and 3, but nothing in the 4th envelope. 

4) Recruit a few hundred people to run your experiment. If you want to be reasonably random, stand in front of your school, a supermarket, department store or Mickey D's and recruit.

5) Tally your results from the emails and any comments you may have received along with the better or worse indicator. Don't forget to count the numbers of non-respondents as people not saying anything is like someone talking and saying nothing (sounds Buddhist, but trust us, it is important).

Did you get better results for Note 1? We bet you will, so perhaps you should start selling mood enhancing crystals from Kolumbunga.

Commentary: Tarot Cards as a Psychological Tool

Jennifer Marre in her blog, Tarot Cards as a Psychological Tool, posits that Tarot cards are not paranormal, just cards with symbols. That's cool by us. Sure there is a lot of pseudoscience, but stating they are just cards sort of diffuses that. But this blog (about the book) is about pseudoscience. What good would we be without some way to totally rip apart the fact that Tarot is more than just a deck of cards with pictures?

Let's start with Jennifer's premiss: Tarot cards have symbols and thus they cause people to create interpretations based on their interpretation of the symbolism... Oh, and a psychologist/therapist can interpret those interpretations to help a person somehow with therapy based on the interpretations of interpretations.

Now we're talking! That sounds like pseudoscience!

 Sure, I like the core that they are just pictures, but Jennifer may have a problem with basic science. Oh yeah, this is psychology... There is not a lot of science in psychology.

Anyway, here is the flaw: You can't tie any response to a card to root causes. It is just sort of impossible. Worse still, the interpretation of the interpretation depends on the interpreting observers history and assumptions.

Let's take the simple case, say the patient plops down the Death card... The patient's interpretation is based on their life experience and pre-wired assumptions that were built on that experience. Their reaction will be based on too many to count, let alone trace to a single root cause for the interpretation. Their reading might be that they see change, death, loss, or even feel that the therapist is indoctrinating them into the devil's science. Those interpretations are just what comes out, there is no way for sure to understand why.

On the other side, the interpreter, say a therapist, has their own assumptions pre-wired. Their life experience does the same thing to both their focus of observations and their interpretations. For example, if the patient is seeing loss, the therapist could believe there was a recent loss in the patient's life or assume the loss was related to childhood trauma. Or, as would be rather obvious, the idea of loss is just what they learned was the interpretation of the card from a friend, book, movie, Oprah, or combinations.

The bottom line though is that there is no way to run an experiment. You know, that silly nerdy stuff  called the Scientific Method. This is a problem with most psychology. Not that I place psychology into pseudoscience, but it will always be on the edge of full blown testable and provable science. There is just no way to get a repeatable and independently verifiable result form human brains. Too messy! If they weren't messy we wouldn't have all those religions or more than one political party.

Sure this could be a tool. But as a tool it is one of the worst. With a hammer and nail you can fairly accurately  drive a nail into a piece of wood(given a little training of course). There is no way that Tarot could be used to any level of accuracy. It is more like a wet noodle with the nail driving itself from belief –poor metaphor, but I am a result of all my experience to this moment in time.

I guess the danger is in just one word used: Interpretation. The moment we 'interpret' we are on the slippery slope of pseudoscience and the danger of conclusions based on belief rather than reality.

That's the lesson. Want to be a great pseudoscientist, be an interpreter of interpretations.

Global Warming Skeptic Upset

Hard to believe, but one of the greatest global warming skeptic of all times has fallen off the wagon. Professor Bjørn Lomborg, an environmental skeptic and enemy of blog writers that can't find the ø on their keyboards, has just produced a new book that says global warming is true and that the best way to solve the problem is to stop burning fossil fuels. He will be missed.


With much sadness, we will mark Professor  Bjørn's passing into the mainstream by putting a few oil soaked pelicans in the gas tank and drive no place in particular (i.e. Fresno, California).


What is really sad is that Professor Bjørn never denied global warming. He only complained about its cost to prevent the human effects. My only guess is that he finally did the math (something forbidden in pseudoscience). Simply, the cost of wind power and stuff like that is actually much cheaper than loosing his beach front property (acquired from proceeds of his prior anti-alternitive-energy book) to the ocean rising because of glacier melt.

A Simple Guide for Proving Anything

I steal. There are a lot of good people out there that are smarter than myself, or at least they have more time to be smarter than I do. I am not proud. I like to point to those I steal from because proper stealing saves time, but keeps you out of prison.

I have talked a lot about how to ensure your pseudoscience is seen as science and even make science seem like pseudoscience. It is always endearing when I see that I am right.

Here is the list from Tusanami's great blog at Young Australian Skeptic:Pseudoscientific Arguments — A Simple Guide For Proving Anything

1. Refer to science as dogma, a few times if possible.
2. Decide on your argumentative position and then cherry pick some evidence..
3. Read up on logical errors — these are best used as part of a convoluted argument
4. Find an Einstein quote that sounds like it might be relevant.
5. Have a thesaurus on hand (a better vocabulary makes your argument stronger).
6. Write with an authoritative tone.
7. Use scientific jargon out of context.
8. Tout your ideas as ones that scientists are incapable of or unwilling to consider.
9. Dispute the whole concept of a scientific fact.
10. Use scientific facts when necessary, but warp them to support your ideas.
11. Use labels, slander, analogies, anecdotes etc. as evidence.
12. Start out with your more scientifically-​​sound material (e.g. stuff you learned in school, or from wikipedia) to gain the reader’s trust, then degrade into the realm of nonsense.
13. An accusatory tone can also help — everybody loves drama.
14. Kick it up a notch with a full-​​blown conspiracy theory — guaranteed to get you a cult following.

Here are a few additional ideas that I came up with (you know I am right):

15) Quote people that agree with you
16) Misquote or quote out of context people that disagree with you (like 4, but simpler)
17) Use statements like 'everyone knows', 'we all agree', 'only a minority disagree', 'any doctor would tell you', 'what scientists won't tell you', and any other misleading statement, no matter how untrue. Special credit for quoting Fox News.
18) "You know I am right", is a great way to cause someone to agree with you.
19) Use the word 'natural'

In essence, the use of logical fallacies works, but the key is to sell your pseudoscience with emotion and especially in ways that makes the reader feel stupid if they don't agree with you. This is exactly what Fox News does. If it works for Fox News, it is 110% approved for use by pseudoscience.