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.