SciBlogs

Posts Tagged pseudoscience

another early hominin specimen, & other things to read Alison Campbell Jun 27

No Comments

I’m catching up on my reading of other people’s blogs, so here are some interesting posts to share with you.

At Laelaps Brian Switek has commented on the latest fossil hominin find. Dubbed ‘Kadanuumuu’ (or ‘Big Man’), this is a partial Australopithecus afarensis skeleton.Kadanuumuu was much larger than the more familiar (& more recent) ‘Lucy’, & because of this & because of features of the pelvis, the scientists who described the remains feel they were probably those of a male. There’s also the suggestion (see the comments thread for Brian’s article) that these remains may overturn the current hypothesis that afarensis’s ribcage was funnel-shaped. Or may not – we probably need more data on this one.

There’s an interesting discussion on Pharyngula  around the separation of science & belief. Part of the post, & the ensuing comments thread, focus on a post by another blogger that appears to be making an argument for students’ personal beliefs to count as valid answers in science exams. Every now & then I’ve seen a student answer a question in this way, rather than giving a reasoned scientific response to said question. In each case I have marked them down, & it’s not because I deny students the right to personal belief systems. It’s because the question has been science-based, & that’s what I expect the answer to be as well. Anyway, the post & discussion are interesting & thought-provoking.

And the Silly Beliefs team have taken a critical look at a recent item on ‘60 Minutes’ that took an extremely credulous stance on the issue of UFOs & alien visitations. I had wondered whether to watch the program but the promos made me think that this would do damage to my blood pressure. Presenting information that turns out to be at least a decade old as something new & exciting doesn’t strike me as particularly good journalism…

Enjoy :-)

pseudoscientific gambits Alison Campbell Jun 16

No Comments

This one struck a chord with me – it highlights the ’Intelligent Design’ (cdesign proponentsists) tactics during in the Dover trial, and also various anti-vaccination shenanigans such as the use of celebrity endorsements. Well, any anti-science shenanigans, actually…

From Tree Lobsters, via the Millenium Project.

putting therapeutic touch to the test Alison Campbell May 08

2 Comments

It’s ’science fair’ time of year again & I’ve volunteered to be a judge at the local fair. I’ve always enjoyed science fairs, starting from way back when my siblings & I regularly entered in the Hawkes Bay event. It’s great meeting a whole bunch of up-&-coming young scientists, & they do some wonderful projects. Some of which, like Emily Rosa’s examination of ‘therapeutic touch’, go a very long way indeed.

When she was nine years old, Emily Rosa was casting around for a science fair project when she saw a video about ‘therapeutic touch’ (a practice which seems to be rather widespread in the US public health system if Orac’s posts are anything to go by). The basic assertion of therapeutic touch (TT) is that everyone has an ‘energy field’ that extends beyond the body, and that TT practitioners can detect this field and influence it in a healing way when they move their hands in that field without actually touching the skin. This apparently removes ‘blockages’ in the energy flow, removes pain residues in cells, all sorts of stuff. (Given that sensations of pain are due to electrical activity in nerve cells, it’s hard to see how there can be any left-overs elsewhere. It’s thus rather difficult to see how a modern US hospital could make such statements on its website.) Emily came up with a simple, elegant way to test the claim that such a field existed and could be detected by a practitioner’s hands. Her initial results were presented in her science fair project & caught the interest of a scientist who suggested a further round of tests – the result was a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association, published 2 years after Emily did her original project. Not bad for someone still in primary school!

Emily contacted 15 therapeutic touch practitioners & explained that she was hoping they’d help with her school science fair project; they all agreed. Her protocol was very simple: she used a screen with holes through which her subjects extended their hands – they couldn’t see what Emily was doing on the other side of the screen. Using a flip of a coin, she randomly decided which of the subject’s hands she would hold her own hand over, and then asked each subject to state which of their hands detected her ‘energy field’. Each person had 10 attempts at this – but failed to do better than would be expected on the basis of chance.

Subsequently, it was suggested that Emily might like to do a second round of sampling with an eye to writing her results up in a scientific paper (helped in this by her parents & a medical doctor). She approached 13 TT practitioners (including 7 who’d taken part in the earlier project) and asked if they’d participate, making it clear that this was for a research paper & that the proceedings would be videotaped for this purpose, so there’s no question (as has been suggested by some critics) that they were fooled into thinking it was ‘just’ a kid’s sci-fair project.

Again the practitioners failed to fire – taking all Emily’s data together, the success rate was only 44%. Tellingly, she asked some practitioners to hold her hands before the tests to determine which hand had the higher ‘energy field’, & then used that hand only – it made no difference to the outcome. Yet you’d expect at least 50% for chance alone – if TT worked the % success should be much higher. As the paper notes: The statistical power of this experiment was sufficient to conclude that if TT practitioners could reliably detect a human energy field, the study would have demonstrated this (Rosa et al. 1998).

And the JAMA paper concludes:

Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigator’s “energy field.” Their failure to substantiate TT’s most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified.

In the PBS archives there’s a rather fascinating Q&A session that Emily did with (mainly) other students; definitely worth a read & it shows her to be a mature young woman with a strong scientific bent. You might also like to listen to Brian Dunning’s take on the whole therapeutic touch thing, over on Skeptoid.com.

It just goes to show, age doesn’t matter if you’re doing good science.

L.Rosa, E.Rosa, L.Sarner & S.Barrett (1998) A close look at therapeutic touch. JAMA 279: 1005-1010

sensing nonsense Alison Campbell May 07

No Comments

The idea for this post comes via the team at the most excellent Silly Beliefs blog: Stuff (repository of news & what looks like an awful lot of other stuff) reported about a Massey University research project. The Stuff report kicks off by saying

Spirits are increasingly making their presence felt in New Zealand, spurred on by celebrity ghost whisperers.

Hmmm. I have to say, what first came to mind was the Dr Who episode where the good folks at Torchwood had been fooling around with the space-time continuum, so that cybermen were pushing through from some other dimension, & people were interpreting their partial manifestations as ghosts. (It all turned to tears, even for the Doctor, although he did eventually save the day.) But here I am, getting side-tracked again. Back to the chase!

The Stuff item goes on to say:

Massey University research reveals growing numbers of Kiwis are sensing spirits. In a recent survey, the proportion of respondents who have felt a spiritual force rose from 33 per cent in 1991, to 40 per cent.

So I trotted off to Google Scholar – couldn’t find any published papers that matched the Stuff description, so I must assume that their breathless article was based on a press release. Going by said article, it appears that the researchers were looking at New Zealanders’ beliefs about the existence of ghosts/spirits. Among other things, they seem to have found that around 50% of people are ‘interested in spiritual forces’ (not quite the same thing as ’sensing’ them), while 25% believe that ‘the dead have supernatural powers.’

Now, that’s about all that can be inferred about the research, so I’m not going to discuss that further here. What I do want to do is look at the way the findings were portrayed by Stuff (& presumably by other media outlets who picked up the story). Listen up, Stuff: a statement by x% of respondents that they believe in a spirit world is NOT THE SAME as spirits actually existing! The researchers seem to have been examining changes in beliefs or belief systems, not accumulating data to test the idea that the object(s) of belief are real. The fact that somone claims to believe in ghosts does not mean that ghosts exist. The great (& unfortunately late) Carl Sagan commented in The demon-haunted world that he could claim that there was an invisible dragon living in his garage. A sceptical response to this claim might be, sorry, can’t see anything. Ah, said Sagan, but what if I said it’s an invisible dragon?

The lead researcher is also quoted as saying

Programmes like Sensing Murder and Ghost Whisperer have popularised psychic experiences that in previous times would have been dismissed as symptoms of psychosis.

The Sensing Murder psychics have almost become spiritual celebrities.

First up, I suspect that it’s only fairly recently that anyone claiming to see ghosts & spirits would have been encouraged to have a quiet chat with a psychiatrist. Go back a few hundred years and someone making these claims might instead have been treated with respect (& in some societies that’s probably still the case).

What’s more, where’s the evidence? Stuff makes the fascinating claim that [s]pirits are increasingly making their presence felt in New Zealand without any real data to support it. Where’s the cold, hard, unequivocal evidence that a ghostly presence has indeed made itself felt? And I don’t mean via self-professed psychics, either. Why would a ghost need to be ’spurred on’ by ‘celebrity ghost whisperers’ or anybody else, if they really wanted to contact the living? Particularly when as interpreted by said ghost whisperers, they say such inane things… (Not to mention the cost – why would your dearly departed wish to speak with you only after you’ve forked out a reasonable amount of money? For those who think, there might just be something in what psychics claim to be able to do – you might just want to read this article on ‘cold reading’ and other tricks of the trade.)

On the thoughtful, investigative journalism scale, the Stuff item deserves an F.

theorists of the lost ark Alison Campbell Apr 28

5 Comments

 From today’s Royal Society compendium of science-related headlines comes this newsflash:

Evangelists claim Noah’s Ark discovery on Turkish mountain: Archaeologists have recovered 4,800-year-old pieces of wood from a structure 4,000 metres up Mount Ararat.
Well. Claims like this crop up fairly regularly, & then disappear without trace. And I have to say, I’m rather underwhelmed by this one, as well. Not least by the nature of the evidence.
 
For example, you can find pictures from the expedition on-line (& thanks to PZ for the link) – it’s news to me that the Ark had stone steps and squared-off stone walls, for example… That & the wooden structures shown suggest to my untutored eye that we’re looking at the remains of a land-based settlement rather than a floating bestiary. It’s also intriguing that carbon-dating data are being claimed as evidence for the veracity of this interpretation, given the way in which many creationists reject any form of radioisotope dating mechanism as inherently flawed. There’s a contradication there somewhere.
 
And – the supposed ‘Ark’ in the images looks awfully like a mountain ridge with an oval drawn round it. Outlines like that do a lot to help the eye ’see’ something that isn’t there; something to do with the fact that we are pattern-seeking animals. (This also explains why some people see the ‘man in the moon’, and a giant ‘face’ on Mars.) Nup. Not convinced.
 
(If it is the Ark, shouldn’t it contain an awful lot of, well, sub-fossil poo? A ship full of animals would generate an awful lot of organic waste over the duration of the voyage…)
 

more bad stats & other stories Alison Campbell Apr 12

No Comments

I have a pile of marking to get through this week, & so that I can make a good start today I thought I might just point you at some interesting posts from other science bloggers.

Another tale of statistics from Ben Goldacre: this time it’s the frankly appalling story of where the lack of understanding cases of statistics can take us. The ‘comments’ section of Ben’s post is also well worth reading.

From Brian Switek: the potential link between forensic science and left-over leopard dinners

And from Orac: a thorough critical examination of a recent NZ press release that announced a study of chiropractic as a means of improving labour….

Enjoy. And hopefully I will have more time tomorrow!

best billboard ever? Alison Campbell Apr 01

No Comments

A few posts ago I wrote something about ‘research’ into psychic phenomena, & why it was bad science. Now Orac has posted a sign that says it all:

 This highlights something that has always puzzled me about the claims made by various psychic practitioners, regarding their abilty to predict future events. Surely they’d have known?

(I am equally bemused by claims – such as those by the psychics involved in the Scole experiment – that it’s possible to speak to the dead. If it is, then why don’t the dead ever seem to say anything useful? Where the will is hidden, perhaps. Or that diamond ring that was lost? Or – in the case of claims to solve murders – surely they could give accurate information on where the body is, or whodunnit?? Is that too much to ask?)

overrun with creepy-crawlies? maybe not… Alison Campbell Mar 16

No Comments

I blog a fair bit about the way science stories are (mis)represented in the press. And when I do, I always wonder what the original press release (from the intitution to the media) would have been like. Now Ben Goldacre’s posted an excellent item on one such release.

The release in question came from a UK pest control firm, & it contained ‘data’ that seemed to show alarmingly high levels of pest infestation on London public transport. (Or, in the case of dust mites, surprisingly low. Only 500 of these tiny critters in a whole railway carriage?) Things like cockroaches, bedbugs, fleas. (Apparently bedbugs are raising their nasty little heads in New Zealand – not something I’d want to see gain a significant foothold here!). Cue a number of rather hysterical media articles.

Ben has done his usual thorough job of investigating this one. And he found – that the company did no studies whatsoever of in-service public transport vehicles. None. Zero. Zilch. Their scary figures were based on a model, which made a whole lot of unsupported & highly unlikely assumptions. As Ben hasn’t been able to track down the original release, we can’t be certain of its contents. But I have to say – to pretend some sort of scientific support for the numbers sent out to the media is to misrepresent what was done as good science. And that does none of us any favours.

an update on facilitated communication Alison Campbell Feb 16

No Comments

A while ago now I wrote about Rom Houben, who’d been in a vegetative state for 23 years but who, it was claimed, was really conscious inside an immobile body & now able to communicate via something known as ‘facilitated communication’. I and many others were sceptical of this claim – it looked too much as if the ‘facilitator’ was controlling what was going on. (That’s not to say they didn’t genuinely believe that they were assisting Mr Houben to communicate.) And there were simple ways to test this, which at the time the lead researcher in the case seemed to feel unnecessary.

Now Steve Novella reports that such a test has been done. Mr Houben was shown several objects while the ‘facilitator’ was out of the room, & subsequently asked to name them with her assistance. He got none of them right. Not one. This very strongly suggests that the facilitator, consciously or otherwise, was imposing her own words & understandings on Mr Houben, and supports Dr Novella’s characterisation of ‘facilitated communication’ as a pseudoscience. (My fellow Sciblogger Darcy Cowan has also posted something about this.)

I feel intensely sorry for Mr Houben & his family in all this. If Mr Houben really does suffer from ‘locked-in syndrome’ (one possible diagnosis), then imagine how that must be for him, day after day. And imagine how profoundly frustrated you would be, in that context, if some well-intentioned person began claiming to help you to ’speak’ – and got it all wrong. And his family – his mother had insisted for years that her son really was alert inside his unresponsive body. To be told that he was, to have him ’speak’ to her, and then to have all that taken away by the lead researcher’s admission that he’d got it all wrong – to me this is indescribably sad.

It also saddens me that people will continue to cling to the hope – exemplified by one of the commenters on Dr Novella’s post – that facilitated communication really does offer the chance of communicating with people who are otherwise cut off from their loved ones (eg children – & adults – with severe autism). But, as the Houben case shows, the words will be those of the facilitator, regardless of their beliefs or intent. (And in case you think I’m being too harsh here, the Houben case is not the only one where the idea of facilitated communication has been shown to be false.)

but it does no harm… Alison Campbell Feb 09

No Comments

Over on Code for Life, Grant’s recently put up some posts concerning homeopathy (here & here, for example). He’s also suggested that homeopathic (& other) remedies should carry disclaimers to do with their active ingredients (or lack thereof) and what they can & can’t do.

Anyway, one of the common responses to articles critical of homeopathy & other ‘complementary & alternative medicines’** is that, even if they ‘work’ only via the placebo effect, at least they do no harm. I would argue that if the placebo effect masks an ongoing problem, then it is doing harm. And the same is true if patients are led to stop taking necessary medication. But – & I think more seriously – here’s an example where following a homeopathic prescription may do considerable damage: homeopathic vaccinations.

The article I’ve linked to (posted  by Peter Bowditch of ratbags.com, for purposes of serious critiquing) makes the following claim:

Homeopathic immunisation is effective against poliomyelitis, chickenpox, meningococcal disease, hepatitis (all types),Japanese encephalitis, Hib, influenza, measles, pneumococcal disease, cholera, smallpox, typhoid, typhus, whoopingcough, rubella, mumps, diphtheria, malaria, tetanus, yellow fever, dysentery, and many other epidemic diseases.

Well, they’re pretty safe in making this claim for smallpox as that’s been eradicated in the wild, but the rest are still with us in various parts of the world. These are pretty extraordinary claims for products that, by their very nature, usually contain no molecules whatsoever of their supposed active ingredients. Most of the diseases on that list can be fatal if left untreated, & can leave survivors with ongoing physical problems. So you’d expect to see some decent evidence that homeopathic ‘vaccines’ actually perform as claimed – good, solid evidence-based data on patient outcomes. Not vague statements that lack names, dates & other data, which is all the article provides. Yet hard evidence appears to be lacking.

Take influenza, for example. Here’s an evidence review from our Ministry of Health – a meta-analysis of a number of studies examining claims for a homeopathic ’remedy’ called oscillococcinum (made from the liver of a dead duck, by the way, although it’s so highly diluted that you would be hard-pressed to find any evidence at all of duck in your liquid or pills). Oscillococcinum is prescribed by many homeopaths as both a prophylactic & treatment  for flu. The Ministry’s evidence summary examined data from a systematic review & a total of 7 clinical trials (representing 3459 patients). Three of the trials (2265 patients) found that the oscillococcinum preparation did not prevent the flu. The other 4 trials looked at its efficacy in treating flu – oscillococcinum shortened the length of the illness by about 6 hours. In other words, this particular homeopathic remedy didn’t do what was claimed for it; it acted as neither vaccine nor treatment. (There did appear to be some reduction in severity of flu symptoms, but as such data tend to be self-reported it’s hard to be sure how much represented actual effect of the preparation & how much reflected patient expectations that they’d get better.)

But that’s just the flu – what about the other claims made in that article? Since they’re extremely vague, & cite no evidence whatsoever in their support, it’s rather difficult to judge. But a scirus search for published data on the claimed efficacy of homeopathic treatment during a a supposed polio ‘epidemic’ in Buenos Aires turned up nothing. And frankly, if the stuff was that good I’d expect to see hard evidence of that fact. Given the potential severity of polio, I’m sure doctors around the globe would love to have an addition to the treatments available to them. But then, it seems that most individuals affected by polio don’t progress to the severe paralytic form of the disease – so many of those Buenos Aires patients claimed as success stories for the homeopathic ‘vaccine’ may in fact have had the less severe infection, easily confused with the flu. With no actual data in the article, how can we tell?

So it’s hard to see how the claims made in the article for homeopathy’s ability to prevent serious, potentially lethal, infectious diseases can be supported. What’s more, I wonder how those claims can sit with any code of conduct for homeopaths. After all, the Society of Homeopaths in the UK has a code of ehtics which clearly states that no advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases. And another homeopathy site expressly states that TCAM practitioners are prohibited from… treating infectious, communicable diseases (which is pretty much everything on that list I cited). Where does the responsibility lie, if someone follows this advice, takes (for example) a malaria ‘vaccine‘, contracts the falciparum form of the disease, and dies?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

PS CAM isn’t really the right term. If a treatment works, can be shown to work in a reliable manner, produces positive outcomes that can be confirmed by other workers in the field – then it’s medicine. If it doesn’t – whatever it is, medicine it’s not.

And Ben Goldacre has an excellent article on the subject here.

« Older Entries