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.

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.

The Pseudoscience of Hate

Why hate? Quite simply hatred is the first step on the road to Pseudoscience. The best way to get someone to believe in your ideas is not to debate and disprove the competition. That's a fool's errand that is worse when you are a respected pseudoscientist.

The best way to prove your point is to de-huminize the competition. You want people to feel only hate and fear for your opponent. The masses will simply not believe any proof from a devil incarnate or a godless heathen.

Here is another great experiment for the budding pseudoscientist:

Have a debate with a scientist on if the Earth is flat. Say to the listeners of the debate that the scientist likes children in inappropriate ways, worships the devil, loves Hitler, and is only doing this for the money. Don't be afraid to say that the scientist is not human. De-huminizing is the best method for slamming an adversary. People love to hate and it is easier if they are not human or less than human.

Another technique is to prove they do not belong to a certain club, like Christians or Republicans. Better yet, make sure you call them Liberal, Democrat or Atheist! Catholic is ok too because nothing better than to make them a part of a club that Glenn Beck already hates.

Debate is not what we are really teaching here. Do not be afraid of the 'debate' word. Just promote fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) - throw in a heaping cup full of hate too. You may not win, but you will seed the FUD in the minds of the listeners.

Remember, and intelligent argument will only cause you to loose in a fair fight with a scientist.

Thousands of skeptics dead from taking homeopathic overdose (Updated)

Well, nobody actually died. The only injury I expect was a few diabetics that forgot about the sugar in the homeopathic preparations that may have had a bit of a problem. A few too may have gotten drunk because other homeopathic recipes contain alcohol. There are many news articles on the event. Here is a good one.

I would not recommend this sort of thing to anyone trying to prove a point. There is some nasty stuff in homeopathic drugs. Worse, there is little regulation to ensure that they are safe. The only thing you should count on is that there should be little or no trace of what homeopathic cures claim to contain.

I found this all an interesting stunt. I am sure they did their homework. The question I have... Where was Oprah? Or Fox news? You would think either of these great entertainment icons would be on hand to see thousands die via a misinformed mass accidental suicide of skeptics.

Another missing face is the folks at from Zicam. You would think they would have sponsored the event. It turned out to be great press because it proved homeopathy is perfectly safe. Ineffective, but safe.

If you attended the event. please comment below. I'd like to see further reports from anyone that attended the event. For instance, did anyone get a nocebo effect and actually die or get sick because they believed they were overdosing? It is one thing to say you are a skeptic and another to have a skeptical subconscious.

UPDATE: According to the Society of Homeopaths, the only time their homeopathic medications work is if the patient has symptoms that the medicine is supposed to fix. So, I guess the only time you can overdose on homeopathic medicine is if you are sick. Guess that the skeptics are going to need to get the flu before they can have a proper mass suicide in protest of fake cures.

The society also says that the stunt is "in very poor taste".  We can only assume that homeopathic medicine is a very bitter pill.

Pseudoscience of Technology Reporting

Take a look at this article:Innovation: What use is a smartbook? - tech - 08 January 2010 - New Scientist This is a great example of Pseudoscience of Technology Reporting. Look for the emotion, opinions, and generalizations. Not to mention the fact that the reporter claimed Las Vegas was in Arizona and not Nevada. Yikes! There is a lesson here.

Good Pseudoscience reporting is useful for slamming things you don't like. The reporter is obviously a poor Luddite. Sadly though, the mistake about geography released the hounds of critics. Read the comments, it is like they let sharks comment on New Scientist!

The other issue with this article is that the reporter is shameless. You need to be sneaky with opinion and make it look science-ish. The key would have been to stalk other people in these booths looking at these eBooks. Just ask each one if they liked these fancy electronic toys. If they have a smirk and a negative reaction (and you are sure your deodorant is up to snuff) then jump into an interview and wait for a juicy negative quote that suits your hidden agenda. If they have a positive reaction, well, no reason to bother your readers.


Pseudoscience is not a walk in the park. You need to work at it to avoid looking like a punter that is pretending to be a reporter. Study hard and read every thing that MacGregor writes as this is exactly the wrong sort of stuff.

When is Homeopathy not Pseudoscience?

A funny thing that happened recently. Zicam, a supposed homeopathic medicine was pulled from the shelves because it caused some people to loose their sense of smell.

I actually have some Zicam in my medicine cabinet. Never used it, but it had some cool packaging that screamed powerful medicine. Mainly bought it because it isn't marketed as homeopathic, rather a sort of vitamin for your nose. At least my reason and I am sticking too it. Tried zinc lozenges for a cold once and they soothed my throat, why not my nose?

You find this sort of stuff right next to the heavy duty drug-based nose candy in the drug store. It isn't on a shelf in the alternative medicines sections. It isn't on a shelf next to the magic crystals from magic healing land or voodoo dolls and bat wing.

Why is a non-drug next to a drug? The fact is, there are ingredients in Zicam. But that is only sort of true. The whole idea of homeopathy is that somehow the poison (and it is usually a poison), is no longer in the solution, but has its aura or essence (whatever, don't get me started) memorized by the water.

Zicam is considered homeopathic because of a law created in 1938. That makes it a drug, but not worth testing like a real drug because it contains naturally existing substances. Of course, many poisons are 'naturally occurring substances'. Just saying.

Love this, it is from a PDF from the Zicam folks FAQ:

Why is zinc gluconate considered homeopathic?

Zinc gluconate is recognized as a homeopathic drug because it has known "homeopathic provings" and/or known effects which mimic the symptoms, syndromes or conditions associated with the common cold, which it is administered to treat.

So, what does that mean? Essentially, if you take enough zinc gluconate you will get a runny nose. That's not good. But if you dilute it in water such that there is no trace... Well let's just say a magic fairy gives it the opposite effect. So, it is a medicine because, wait for it, in quantity it makes you feel sick, but diluted it makes you well.

You gotta love logic. It is so easy to twist. And we have believed this since 1792. Just goes to prove, illogic ages like a good wine.

Anyhoo, what is the effect a active dilution could have to cause smell blindness? Possibilities range from coincidence to other factors. Could be contamination, the fact that they use alcohol, or even that the dilution isn't really all that diluted and can cause problems in some people. Even mass delusion is a possibility - rumors can cause health effects too. Of course it can also be a bad coincidental sniffer failure experienced at the same time as using Zicam. When you roll the dice that someone gets well on their own, sometimes they get sick on their own too.

As you might guess, my Zicam is in the trash. Not that it can kill my sense of smell, but because it is homeopathic. Please don't get me wrong. Nothing wrong with homeopathy. Placebos are great stuff. I just don't believe in it and therefore I am immune to its effects.

There is another reason. The nocebo effect is also very powerful as we have discussed before. Just knowing that others have lost their sense of smell could cause your brain to kill your nose just from the belief that it could happen to you too.

Of course, I avoid homeopathic drugs as a matter of course becaue of the nocebo effects. If the whole idea is that it is a diluted poison (or whatever causes the bad effect like a runny nose), I have a tendency to believe in the effects of the poison rather than some anti-poison effect. I have a lot of faith in poisons rather than homeopathy. Call me silly, but this is my motto: That which does not kill me is probably not a poison.

You know I have not really offered up any experiments. Let's create an experiment worthy of a Boys Book Lab experiment!

1. Take an over the counter stool softener and dilute to 10,000 to 1 so as to create the homeopathic equivalent of an anti-diarrhea medication.
2. Take highest dose you can stand of an over the counter stool softener (contracting Montezuma's Revenge will also suffice for this experiment).
3. Take a teaspoon or so of your homeopathic anti-diareah mixture.
4. Call the Oprah show from your touchtone phone from the privacy of your bathroom throne to report your results.

Got a homeopathic experiment? Write it up in the comments and maybe I'll put it in my book! You too can get published!

There is no such thing as pseudoscience

There is no such thing as pseudoscience. It is just the messiness of the human mind. We don't believe this stuff because we are delusional, but we are hard wired to be delusional. Self-delusion is inexpensive. It does not waste a lot of energy. We just use authority figures and rules of thumb and that's good enough. Has been since the first primitive brain cells started communicating.

The only real differences between an antivaxer and a doctor is that the anti-vaccination believeer is shooting from the hip, just like you would in the jungle. You don't eat poison plants in the jungle.

The evidence for poison really depends on if it is really a poison or just chance that the fellow died or got sick near the same time they eat a plant. Worse is evidence in front of you or from a celebrity as this hold more weight. Data is not as believable as your neighbor or a playboy model. Either way, a sample of one, as long as it is first hand or from an authority figure (Oprah), the one sample is good enough in the jungle. No need to experiment because that would be freaky dangerous.

We can experiment now. We are beyond the jungle, or at least those that have the time or aptitude. If you don't have the time, have a poor education, attended a California public school, or part of the Left Behind policies, you don't experiment and don't have the experience of what good science proves.

There is a price. It takes energy to do science. You have to have commitment. If you live in a trailer park and work for minimum wage, the biggest experiment you've done is Mentos and Diet Coke.

Real scientists are rare. And that Poor little mice pay a price... Or if you are a do it yourself scientist, get your sister to take a nibble. But others would rather save calories and look to their authority figures in the church, politics, and celebrities.

We have more data. But folks are still wired to live in the jungle... That is of course if you believe in evolution of man.

Oprah - Queen of Pseudoscience?

Is Oprah really the Queen of Pseudoscience? It is a tough call. Here at the "Boys Book of" offices, we asked the question. The mailman wasn't going to talk, but the rest cozied up to the big screen in the break rook to watch a few Tivo'd Oprahs.

The Secret is a good one. It isn't about any 'secret' per say, but the weird stuff you wouldn't think about in a million years. That make The Secret more fantasy or science fiction than science or even pseudoscience.

Indeed, there are things in The Secret that have a of real science. Try not to think of an Elephant.... I'll wait... See, that is all the secret is about. It is placebo and nocebo. It is attention of the mind on a goal. Nothing rocket science. The hoopla around The Secret is the wacky pseudoscience around how it works. Some guys are out there saying you are fiddling with the quantum foam of the universe and that's way out there. 

The Secret is all rather harmless pseudoscience. If you are trailer trash when you watch that episode, you are still trailer trash. If you have good ambition, ability to focus, and brave enough to grab opportunities when they appear, The Secret is just a good motivational self-help book that gets the juice flowing.

But is Oprah the queen of The Secret pseudoscience? You bet! She can bring in the stars! As we all know, scientists are nothing compared to movie stars. It isn't good pseudoscience unless you have good hollywood backing it up.

Ok, what about the antivaxers? Jenny McCarthy is the spokeswoman and recently appeared on the O show. Vaccinations cause autism, that's the cry anyway. 

Well, I have been vaccinated. I don't have autism as far as I can tell. But there are other things vaccination is linked with. For example, egg allergies because most vaccines are grown in chicken eggs. But vaccinations are always with a little danger but it is one in a very large number. Do we really understand the risks? Not sure, but the fact is that death by polio, measles, mumps, and other nasty stuff is a pretty good incentive for vaxination.

Poor Jenny does not have a lot to stand on if she is trying to link vaccinations to autism. There just isn't any evidence. Worse if you are pushing a boycott that has far greater danger.

Is anti-vaccination pseudoscience? I don't see it, sorry. It is just bad math. If Jenny was pushing magnets instead of vaccinations, well, you have my attention then. But no, the crystals and therapy candles are missing.

Is Oprah putting a notch in her pseudoscience belt by putting Jenny on TV? Well, there I go the other way. If you classify pseudoscience as believing in what ever is pushed by a former Playboy model, well... I must admit that you are definitely in crazyville if you think that this is a public service. It reeks of pseudoscience because real science doesn't have women that are that good looking and pose naked for Playboy.

But I don't think this goes all the way. Oprah even posted a response from the American Academy of Pediatrics that poo poos a bit of the show. I am so sorry, but disclaimers on your hokum are ok, unless they are quoted from real scientists. That's not proper pseudoscience and never will be.

So, two examples. You can guess that I am not putting Oprah on the top of the list for best talk show hokum. 

I must admit some bias though. I want to be an Oprah Book of the Month selection. I'm not going to suck up to Oprah and make her Queen of Pseudoscience just to get top billing. I want the book to speak for itself. Maybe then she gets the crown, no sooner. 

What is your opinion? Who is the Queen or King of pseudoscience?