Checking for pseudoscience in real science news (updated)
One of the larger problems of the internet (OK, there are a lot) is how science is discussed out in the world. Google any science topic, and you’ll get thousand or millions of hits on any idea in science or medicine. The information is derived from other websites, news reports, rumors, or, to be cynical, from outright fabrication. In the fields of science and medicine, critical thinking is absolutely necessary to understanding it. Because it’s hard work, pseudoscience and anti-science have become quite prevalent lately.
One only needs to look at the whole vaccine “debate,” where one group says that “vaccines cause autism,” while the science side says, “there is no evidence for that.” To the uncritical eye, one could accept that both sides are the same, just the debate hasn’t been settled yet. It’s the same with global warming, alternative medicine, creationism, sasquatch, or any other pseudoscience you can find. But in reality, good science journalism will provide you with the real science, whereas bad journalism will still claim it’s a “scientific controversy.”
Just spend some time on Facebook, you will find lots of misinformation about science and medicine. Just today, someone posted a story on Facebook that some “Japanese scientists” claimed that bananas had high levels of “tumor necrosis factor“, so eat bananas to cure cancer and maintain a healthy immune system. Debunking it was fairly easy:
- The study was published here (pdf). There are several issues with it: 1. It’s a mouse model. You cannot believe how many animal models fail to transfer to humans. 2. The article is published in a low impact journal. This journal has an impact factor of less than 1.0, which indicates a very low quality journal and it’s not even indexed in PubMed, which further indicates its low value. 3. I dispute the inference that injecting banana extract intraperitoneally can have an inference for ingesting a banana orally. Can we induce the same immune subsystems in the same way? Doubtful. 4. What is the clinical significance of what was induced? In other words, is there actually TNF isolated from the bananas in a form that actually can do something? Or is there some other effect just because there’s a blob of intraperitoneal banana extract which induces some other immune response. In fact, the paper does not even indicate that the banana itself has any TNF or TNF-like activity in it. 5. No one has repeated this experiment, and certainly no one has shown this effect in humans.
- Since tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a fairly complex protein, with a highly specific role in the human immune system (something notably lacking in a plant), the chances that a banana contains some substance that exactly mimics or copies TNF is so tiny as to be close to impossible.
- Even if the banana makes TNF, what is the chance that it would survive the digestive tract and be absorbed into the bloodstream? Again, almost impossible, since the digestive tract’s purpose is to break down complex proteins and substances into its constituent components before being absorbed into the bloodstream. The TNF probably wouldn’t survive the digestive tract.
- Since TNF has a very specific action on the immune response, and not directly on cancer cells, how do we eat sufficient bananas (even if it did have TNF and it could be absorbed into the bloodstream) to increase the level locally to actually cause the appropriate immune response? And which one of the 200 or so cancers would it effect?
- TNF causes many of the clinical problems associated with autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa and refractory asthma. So, if a banana had TNF, if it could pass into the bloodstream from the digestive system, if it could reach high enough levels to actually do something, it probably wouldn’t have any effect on any of the cancers, but it could have serious side effects. However, I wouldn’t worry about it, since there are so many “if’s” that it’s just not possible.
- It’s clear that the inventor of this meme had no clue that tumor necrosis factor doesn’t mean it kills tumors (it is kind of an odd name). It actually has multiple effects on several parts of the immune response, some of it so complex that some of it can be negative to your health.
- And this “boost the immune system” myth? The immune system is an incredibly complex system, with an almost infinite number of interactions between various proteins, compounds, organs, factors, and cells. As long as you’re healthy, so is your immune system, there is nothing you can do to make it stronger, better, or “boostier.” Well, vaccinations help, but they rely upon an appropriate immune response. So even if you won the Nobel Prize by finding some miracle compound that “boosts the immune system,” it would work on one tiny part of that system, and it would have a zero net effect.
Emily Willingham, at Double X Science (great name!), wrote an article, Science, health, medical news freaking you out? Do the Double X Double-Take first, on how to read science or medical news. She lists out six steps on how to analyze the next intriguing science story that you read. This can work on something written in the New York Times, or even just some internet claim that sounds a bit too good to be true.
- Skip the headline. “Headlines are often misleading, at best, and can be wildly inaccurate. Forget about the headline. Pretend you never even saw the headline.” There is nothing to add here. Too often, you’ll see a news article that says “eat this, it’ll cure cancer.” But when you get through the article, it’s more like “eat this, and it may reduce the risk of carcinomas in rats.”
- What is the basis of the article? If it’s an editorial (even in a scientific or medical journal) or a presentation at a conference or meeting, then it is of limited value. Editorials are just opinion, and presentations at meetings lack peer review. Many, if not a majority, of research presented at meetings does not end up being published, and is a forgotten part of the scientific process. There’s a group of “engineers” pretending to push real science, but use pseudoscience based on few peer-reviewed articles, and mostly nonsense meeting abstracts to “prove” their point. Alternative medicine pushers are often well known to “research mine” to find the one presentation that supports their beliefs.
- Look at the words in the article. A lot of these news stories contain words like linked, associated, correlation and/or risk. One of the biggest errors one can make is conflating correlation with causation, or the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, just because one follows another, or one is correlated with another, that is not “proof” of causation. For example, smoking is correlated with lung cancer. That doesn’t prove it causes it. However, there is biological evidence (published in journals) that support smoking’s causative relationship to lung cancer. Humorously, there probably are lot of kids who break their arms soon after getting a vaccination, enough to show some level of mathematical correlation. But stating that the vaccine is the causative factor would be silly, since there just a random number of kids who will break their arms in any period of time, irrespective of the vaccination.
- Look at the original source of the information. The gold standard of science is a review article from a respected journal. The Cochrane reviews are one of the best (but far from perfect) source for meta-analyses of numerous publications in medicine. They are the basis of evidence-based medicine by rolling up all of the published evidence, detecting flaws in some studies, and coming to a conclusion. A single published article should be taken with grain of salt, even if published in a great journal, until there is further confirmation and repetition of the experimentation, which is why a review article is so valuable. The next highest standard of scientific publication is a peer-reviewed paper in a high-impact journal. Peer-review is a simple concept–experts anonymously review the submitted article to determine if it’s well written, brings new information, and seems plausible. It’s not magic. It’s not a conspiracy of scientists to keep out information, it is just a method to make sure the article and science is plausible and worthy of inclusion. A high-impact journal is one that has high standards, is well-read, and is cited frequently by other articles. Science, Nature, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Medical Journal, and others are high impact factor peer reviewed. The quality drops from there. Abstracts or presentations from a conference or meeting are not peer-reviewed and are mostly speculative. That does not mean they should be dismissed absolutely, but if they’re bringing out something new, it has a while before it moves up to the higher level of publication. The worst of the worst are press releases from any organization (usually the university where the researcher is located) or articles published without any type of peer review. Any news article should have links back to the original peer-reviewed article, or make it easy to find that article
- Remember that every single person involved in what you’re reading has something to gain. The news outlet needs clicks to get more advertising dollars. The reporter needs clicks to keep their job at the news outlet. Some individuals purporting to present real medical news, like Joey Mercola, are just trying to sell potions that have no meaningful effect. Of course, a press release from a respected university, pharmaceutical company, or research institution is just trying to get fame, money and prestige. In other words, be skeptical of everything, until you can confirm it. Skepticism, as opposed to denialism, insists that you keep accumulating evidence to support or debunk a claim.
- Ask a scientist. Scientists love questions. They love answering questions. They love teaching. Neil deGrasse Tyson, probably one of the most popular astronomers since Carl Sagan, will answer questions asked of him on Twitter or Facebook. Will he answer nonsense questions like “why do you hate Pluto so much?”–probably not. But maybe he’ll give a reasonable answer to “what’s the chance of an asteroid hitting earth in the next 50 years?” Jerry Coyne, one of the top evolutionary biologists has a website. Richard Dawkins has a website too. If you want to chat with some of the best scientists in medicine, Paul Offit, Steven Novella, and David H. Gorski, you will find that all are open to being contacted and will probably answer your questions. Many pseudoscientists, like Ken Ham or the Age of Autism, refuse to answer questions with science, resorting to anti-scientific rhetoric, or usually just delete comments that don’t meet their simple-minded dogma. If you want real science, there are many scientists on Twitter and Facebook that are easy to find. By the way, since so much time on this blog is spent on vaccines and the non-existent link to autism, Liz Ditz’s blog should be a first stop for more information. She is much more civil than most of the “vaccine is safe” crowd.
Real science is open to the bright lights of analysis and criticism. It doesn’t try to hide anything, so one must take the time to dig for the actual information. Read any global warming denialist news piece, and it will base it’s information on opinion pieces or a letter written by a few NASA engineers claiming global warming doesn’t exist. And the denialist news article will never refer to peer-reviewed articles in respected science journals.
Well written scientific journalism should always point you to the essential research. Bad journalism makes you work to find the actual science, but if you persevere you will find the necessary information to make an informed and critical analysis. Maybe if you do, you won’t be eating 100 bananas to get your dose of tumor necrosis factor.
(Note: a further update to analyzing published scientific sources can be found here.)
via Combatting A Tsunami of Pseudoscience: The Double X Double-Take – I Speak of Dreams
THANK YOU SO MUCH; YOU have enlightened my "what I thought I was enlightened"mind on the topic I originally read regarding bananas. What you are doing is noble; again I thank you for your efforts.
[...] The original science: Guess what? Someone else already wrote an interesting blog post on this! Checking for pseudoscience in real science news (updated) [...]
Just to let you know, the vaccine/autism debate has been settled because the researcher who did get his findings published in a peer review journal has admitted to falsifying information.
[...] these websites should read my article on how to find bad science in news articles. Hah. Related PostsGMO opponents are the global warming denialists of the [...]
This person claims to "debunk" the Teikyo University study but has conducted no study, only armchair assumptions about the subject discussed in the published paper. The only substantive reason this person gives is that the paper was not published in a medical journal and is therefore an "editorial." The fact that it was not concurred with by other scientists (who have not conducted a study on the subject, either) is hardly relevant. The concept "it costs nothing to be a skeptic" certainly applies here.
[...] Cancer | Evidence based medicine | Immunology | Nutrition | PseudoscienceThree months ago, I wrote an article about how to dig through pseudoscience and misinformation to get at the scientific facts which may help you accept or reject something you might read on the [...]
[...] to that weight, it just doesn’t support that it causes cancer. And it proves one more thing. Do NOT use press releases as your scientific proof source. They aren’t worth anything, because they aren’t written by scientists, and they are [...]
So True!
I will still eat Speckle(not bruised)aged bananas. Thanks for the very informative information.
The worst part of this lie is that this guy posts it weekly:
https://www.facebook.com/Sciencefact?ref=stream
I have another one for you that has been torturing my lunches.
In Brazil many doctors say that it is bad for you to drink during or too close to meals. It is even supposed to make you fatter.
I cannot really find a reasoning about this and I am afraid to be part of a big cultural hoax. Even when challenged by colleagues in my institute I could not employ the time needed to find good evidences..
Help!
I have another one for you that has been torture my lunches.
In Brazil many doctors say that it is bad for you to drink during or too close to meals. It is even supposed to make you fatter.
I cannot really find a reasoning about this and I am afraid to be part of a big cultural hoax. Even when challenged by colleagues in my institute I could not employ the time needed to find good evidences..
Help!
Can anyone tell if this one is true?
http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive?popular=true
I couldn’t find nothing about this in NASA’s site or verify the scientific work of Dr. Harold White
I pretty much focus on medicine, so I personally am not the right person to ask about. However, here’s the problem: energy. As the article states, the amount of energy required to do this increases asymptotically with each increase in speed over some theoretically increase over light speed. At some point, it becomes impossible.
Look at this paper. It’s not peer reviewed, but it should help you wander around the NASA website:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936
Cool thanks! Indeed Harold White himself..
I really like your general endeavor of hunting pseudoscience, but I must disagree with your last point in this particular “debunking”.
Although it is certainly true that complex biological systems show homeostatic properties – so that every change in the network will change its behavior – they also show sensitivity in specific points of the network. Thus, it is in principle (and in practice!) possible to alter the behavior of even very resilient system if the appropriate manipulations are made. It is almost certainly not the case of the referred study, but things like interferon treatment could be an example.
Would you agree?
Well, in a sense yes. But you couldn’t eat more of a plant or vitamin to boost your interferon production. You can artificially add interferon to your body in a localized manner, but even then, it will send a negative feedback to the rest of the system that might cause some issue with the rest of the immune system. The point of the immune system is that you can’t make it work better…it actually works nearly perfectly unless you have some chronic immune suppression, such as HIV or cancer or malnutrition. It’s just too complex.
I have another one for you that has been torturing my lunches.
In Brazil many doctors say that it is bad for you to drink during or too close to meals. It is even supposed to make you fatter.
I cannot really find a reasoning about this and I am afraid to be part of a big cultural hoax. Even when challenged by colleagues in my institute I could not employ the time needed to find good evidences..
Help!
Sorry about not replying. I have some issues with my commenting system. I cannot find anything either. In fact, I would suppose if you drank water before a meal, you'd actually eat less, because you'd feel fuller. That's actually one of the suggestions to people who diet.
It is funny how such simple things are hard to find.
Although I am into basic research, sometimes I guess it is the lack of applied science that gives so much room to pseudoscience.
Can anyone tell if this one is true?
http://gizmodo.com/5942634/nasa-starts-development-of-real-life-star-trek-warp-drive?popular=true
I couldn't find nothing about this in NASA's site or verify the scientific work of Dr. Harold White
I pretty much focus on medicine, so I personally am not the right person to ask about. However, here's the problem: energy. As the article states, the amount of energy required to do this increases asymptotically with each increase in speed over some theoretically increase over light speed. At some point, it becomes impossible.
Look at this paper. It's not peer reviewed, but it should help you wander around the NASA website:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20110015936
Cool thanks! Indeed Harold White himself..
I really like your general endeavor of hunting pseudoscience, but I must disagree with your last point in this particular "debunking".
Although it is certainly true that complex biological systems show homeostatic properties – so that every change in the network will change its behavior – they also show sensitivity in specific points of the network. Thus, it is in principle (and in practice!) possible to alter the behavior of even very resilient system if the appropriate manipulations are made. It is almost certainly not the case of the referred study, but things like interferon treatment could be an example.
Would you agree?
Well, in a sense yes. But you couldn't eat more of a plant or vitamin to boost your interferon production. You can artificially add interferon to your body in a localized manner, but even then, it will send a negative feedback to the rest of the system that might cause some issue with the rest of the immune system. The point of the immune system is that you can't make it work better…it actually works nearly perfectly unless you have some chronic immune suppression, such as HIV or cancer or malnutrition. It's just too complex.
Michael Simpson. I cannot find any answer from you on why eugenics was the science around the time of Hitler?
The USA embraced it too at the time.
Did you know that the wax on top ramen causes cancer? “we cannot digest wax and it builds up in our system causing cancer” The person I called on this statement “counsels people on nutrition”
I like my bananas just like this and will continue to eat them this way but…
Unfortunately there are several problems with the claims on this caption.
1) TNF is a highly toxic substance. You don’t want it generally disseminated in the body. It helps kill cancer cells but it is not used on cancer patients because it wreaks havok on normal cells and body systems. In fact a great deal of the horror of advanced cancer comes from the body over secreting TNF. It causes normal cells to die, muscles and healthy systems starve and waste away.
After the initial trials in the treatment of cancer patients it was abandoned and got nicknamed patient necrosis factor. It is implicated as a damaging factor in many diseases including toxic shock syndrome, asthma, allergy, Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/immunology/students/spring2000/wolf/tnfalpha.html
2) The proper role of TNF is for immune cells to secrete it in microdose quantities at microscopically precise locations that the cells detect unusual activity indicative of cancer. It is almost like the immune system is burning away small regions of tissue in the hope that in addition to killing normal cells it will also wipe out cancer in its early stages before it can grow and spread.
Eating something that has the same activity as TNF will expose the whole body to this toxicity instead of using it in the targeted fashion it must be used.
3) The claim in this picture apparently can be traced back to one obscure scientific journal that apparently has not really been double checked by the general scientific community since it is only cited twice.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fstr/15/3/15_3_275/_article
4) The article itself does not claim that bananas have TNF. It claims that banana extract injected or directly mixed with immune cells (as opposed to processed through the digestive tract) causes these immune cells to be primed to release cytokines (inflammatory and immune aggression factors) as if they had been exposed to TNF or another immune triggering chemical Il-12.
5) I am not an immunologist so I can not say for sure, but I suspect this result would have been rejected from a better journal, since it looks like an non-specific allergic reaction to me. The immune system will get revved up to attack anything that looks like it does not belong in the blood. Food never makes it into the blood stream from the digestive tract intact. It is broken down into its basic constituents that are too small to trigger immune reactions.
In this experiment mice were injected with banana juice. As I see it the immune system was getting ready to breakdown something in the blood it knew did not belong there.
This has nothing to do with eating bananas triggering cancer fighting natural defenses.
6) The moral of the story here is that people read science badly and misunderstand it. They then make up stories about it that fit their hopes, fears and other preconceptions about the world. Then other people innocently trust them and spread that stuff around. There is no shame in this. It is perfectly human. I have done it and still occasionally slip up. Nevertheless it is something to be guarded against. Finding the truth takes a lot of work.
Michael Simpson. I cannot find any answer from you on why eugenics was the science around the time of Hitler?
The USA embraced it too at the time.
Did you know that the wax on top ramen causes cancer? "we cannot digest wax and it builds up in our system causing cancer" The person I called on this statement "counsels people on nutrition"
I like my bananas just like this and will continue to eat them this way but…
Unfortunately there are several problems with the claims on this caption.
1) TNF is a highly toxic substance. You don't want it generally disseminated in the body. It helps kill cancer cells but it is not used on cancer patients because it wreaks havok on normal cells and body systems. In fact a great deal of the horror of advanced cancer comes from the body over secreting TNF. It causes normal cells to die, muscles and healthy systems starve and waste away.
After the initial trials in the treatment of cancer patients it was abandoned and got nicknamed patient necrosis factor. It is implicated as a damaging factor in many diseases including toxic shock syndrome, asthma, allergy, Alzheimer's and diabetes.
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/immunology/students/spring2000/wolf/tnfalpha.html
2) The proper role of TNF is for immune cells to secrete it in microdose quantities at microscopically precise locations that the cells detect unusual activity indicative of cancer. It is almost like the immune system is burning away small regions of tissue in the hope that in addition to killing normal cells it will also wipe out cancer in its early stages before it can grow and spread.
Eating something that has the same activity as TNF will expose the whole body to this toxicity instead of using it in the targeted fashion it must be used.
3) The claim in this picture apparently can be traced back to one obscure scientific journal that apparently has not really been double checked by the general scientific community since it is only cited twice.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fstr/15/3/15_3_275/_article
4) The article itself does not claim that bananas have TNF. It claims that banana extract injected or directly mixed with immune cells (as opposed to processed through the digestive tract) causes these immune cells to be primed to release cytokines (inflammatory and immune aggression factors) as if they had been exposed to TNF or another immune triggering chemical Il-12.
5) I am not an immunologist so I can not say for sure, but I suspect this result would have been rejected from a better journal, since it looks like an non-specific allergic reaction to me. The immune system will get revved up to attack anything that looks like it does not belong in the blood. Food never makes it into the blood stream from the digestive tract intact. It is broken down into its basic constituents that are too small to trigger immune reactions.
In this experiment mice were injected with banana juice. As I see it the immune system was getting ready to breakdown something in the blood it knew did not belong there.
This has nothing to do with eating bananas triggering cancer fighting natural defenses.
6) The moral of the story here is that people read science badly and misunderstand it. They then make up stories about it that fit their hopes, fears and other preconceptions about the world. Then other people innocently trust them and spread that stuff around. There is no shame in this. It is perfectly human. I have done it and still occasionally slip up. Nevertheless it is something to be guarded against. Finding the truth takes a lot of work.
Michael Simpson… I think I love you. lol
But seriously, you may want to use smaller words if you want the people who REALLY need to get this information to be able to understand it…
I appreciate being loved, but since GF reads this, we’ll have to keep it secret. LOL. I’m not sure what to do about the words, but I’ll try.
naw i enjoy the use of your language and vocabulary. It brilliantly illustrates your points. Those that are confused by it, most of it is simple language and use the other words on google. I personally enjoy your arguments, they are straight to the point, no bullshit, and attacking/pointing to all angles of the argument. Problem with people is they always try to find flaws, and when they don’t find any, they start making up ones.
I was actually kidding about his choice of vocabulary. But don’t even get me started on your punctuation. Heheheh kidding again
Michael Simpson… I think I love you. lol
But seriously, you may want to use smaller words if you want the people who REALLY need to get this information to be able to understand it…
I appreciate being loved, but since GF reads this, we'll have to keep it secret. LOL. I'm not sure what to do about the words, but I'll try.
naw i enjoy the use of your language and vocabulary. It brilliantly illustrates your points. Those that are confused by it, most of it is simple language and use the other words on google. I personally enjoy your arguments, they are straight to the point, no bullshit, and attacking/pointing to all angles of the argument. Problem with people is they always try to find flaws, and when they don't find any, they start making up ones.
I was actually kidding about his choice of vocabulary. But don't even get me started on your punctuation. Heheheh kidding again
You may be right about bananas but there will never going to be a a study about simple things, like FNT in bananas, that will be supported by the Pharma Industry. Pharma Industry spends a lot of money to prove theyrs point of view buit we know they are only interested in making more money.
Amusing, except that wouldn’t be true. First of all, bananas don’t produce TNF, period. It would be an evolutionary impossibility since TNF is a complex protein that has importance in mammals, and would be useless in plants.
Next, your Big Pharma ad hominem is silly. You obviously do not have a clue how scientific research is done. And if you really believe that Big Pharma wants to make money off of anything that hey find, then if bananas really made TNF, then they’d be finding any possible way to isolate banana TNF and make a bunch of money off of it. Seriously, if you’re going to make unscientific arguments, at least try to be consistent in your presentation of bad evidence.
Where do you work?
Diamantino Junior I sweep floors.
Michael Simpson I sell legal drugs.
The relevance of your reply is what? That you have some insight into what Big Pharma does? Unless you have responsibility for the research and development department of a large pharmaceutical company, your knowledge is minimal.
You may be right about bananas but there will never going to be a a study about simple things, like FNT in bananas, that will be supported by the Pharma Industry. Pharma Industry spends a lot of money to prove theyrs point of view buit we know they are only interested in making more money.
Amusing, except that wouldn't be true. First of all, bananas don't produce TNF, period. It would be an evolutionary impossibility since TNF is a complex protein that has importance in mammals, and would be useless in plants.
Next, your Big Pharma ad hominem is silly. You obviously do not have a clue how scientific research is done. And if you really believe that Big Pharma wants to make money off of anything that hey find, then if bananas really made TNF, then they'd be finding any possible way to isolate banana TNF and make a bunch of money off of it. Seriously, if you're going to make unscientific arguments, at least try to be consistent in your presentation of bad evidence.
Where do you work?
Diamantino Junior I sweep floors.
Michael Simpson I sell legal drugs.
The relevance of your reply is what? That you have some insight into what Big Pharma does? Unless you have responsibility for the research and development department of a large pharmaceutical company, your knowledge is minimal.
My, my, how yo'll carry on…
I get it. Anyone who is a real scientist is someone who agrees with you and a pseudoscientist is anyone who doesn’t.
That would be an ad hominem argument. Pseudoscience is a very specific set of parameters:
•Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims with an assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
•Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation with assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment.
•Lack of openness to testing by other experts, and evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called “science by press conference”). By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
•Absence of progress and failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims, whereas scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.
•Personalization of issues. Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results. In addition, attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims, also known as an ad hominem fallacy.
• Use of misleading language.
In other words, science is something that uses the scientific method, publishes in peer reviewed journals, is open to the bright light of criticism, and progresses by eliminating errors. That I stand on the side of science might is something about which I’m proud. That I stand against pseudoscience is pretty clear. That I point out that which is pseudoscience is easily supported by what is shown to be pseudoscience.
So, if you want to claim that bananas cure cancer, bring scientific evidence. If you’re going to make that claim with a vague untestable claim, then it is absolutely pseudoscience. I brought vast science that shows that bananas do nothing for cancer. You bring an ad hominem. Case closed.
Michael Simpson
1. You obviously have alot of time to spend on the internet and I don’t so I’ll not be able to respond to every detail.
2. You also said something like, ” But please, can you tell me where you got your Ph.D. in biochemistry?…etc.” Isn’t that breaking some incorrect arguement rule, like attacking the person instead of sticking with the argument? It’s possible that an uneducated and ignorant somebody can speak facts and that doesn’t change the facts. I’m not saying that that’s what that person is, of course. (I don’t know them.) I’m just pointing out your discrepancy.
3. You might keep in mind that in your audience there are individuals that do not have as much faith (if any), confidence, and adoration in your science and scientists as you do. Oh yes, I know, that means that there is something wrong with THEM.
1. No I don’t spend a lot of time on the internet. I have a very high level of education. I manage my blog. I am a science writer. All else is some odd ad hominem from you.
2. No. If someone is going to make an argument from authority, then I want to know the basis of their authority. If someone is going to argue that they know more than me about say, astronomy, and it’s Neil deGrasse Tyson, well, I surrender. I’ll still demand evidence, but I’ll defer. Still, there are no facts in science. That is an error in understanding about science. Science deals in evidence, and absent evidence, it is nothing more than conjecture. It is ignorant if someone cannot or refuses to provide evidence. And demanding evidence is my job as a skeptic. If someone refuses to provide evidence, they may as well shut up, because it’s like talking to the wall.
3. Science is not based on faith. Science is a methodology for understanding the natural world. It is simply a system to acquire knowledge, it is not magic, it is not belief, it is not faith. It generates hypotheses, it tests them, it repeatedly tests them, then analyzes the data from the tests, then it publishes it. It is not be adored. It is just logical. Yeah, I understand that people are so weak that they need their bibles, and beliefs in homeopaths and crap medicine.
Skeptics are not preachers, we don’t expect to convert anyone, and we don’t think people will go to some imaginary hell if they’re not convinced of our arguments. But if I can convince one parent to get their child vaccinated, or one person who realizes that they’re not going to cure cancer by eating a banana and gets real treatment for cancer, then I’ve done a good thing for the world.
1. You’re not the only person in the world with “a very high level of education.” Funny that you should mention it.
2. Speaking about authority (since you took the conversation the direction you did in #3), an authority is someone or something that has the “most” of something: education, money, power (legal or otherwise), say so, etc., and there are two authorities that will have the last word where you are concerned, and they are Death and God. And one of these days you’re going to die and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Then you will know and your attitude will change. Until that time, I rest my case.
It’s obvious that Michael is classic example of an over-educated, pseudo-intellectual malapert, emanating unparalleled arrogance. He displays self righteous indignation with an intense superiority complex by way of a “scientist complex”; yet, paradoxically, he is full of nothing but empty space since he’s only able to regurgitate biased statistics. This is an effort to take the focus off of the fact that he is nothing but an indoctrinated, pontificating “know it all” who sorely lacks actual critical thinking skills. He doesn’t realize that being “educated” is NOT the same as being intelligent, and lack of “education” is NOT the same as being “ignorant”! Michael has yet to learn these infinite truths, which is evident by the manner in which he quickly attempts to put down and personally attack anyone exhibiting that which he sorely lacks, because he perceives it as a threat to all he believes to be true. If anyone has the nerve to contradict his extremely biased views, he attempts to “expose” their “lack of education”, which he incorrectly refers to as “ignorance”, trying to nitpick them into them submission. Ironic, considering that he is so heavily biased/blinded by “journals, graphs, and statistics”, that he, ultimately, is the truly ignorant one. Michael, and people like him, are essentially nothing but pseudo-humans only capable of retaining and regurgitating what they’ve been taught, which may, or may not be, accurate, rather than thinking for themselves. Michael is dangerously perpetuating science as the ‘end all’ answer without consideration that it is constantly evolving, and additionally is not exempt from corruption! He is arrogantly contributing to the destructive system of this world via an ironic facade of “skepticism”, creating controversy regarding mainstream issues, while suppressing viable discourse with his dismissive arrogance. This quite literally makes him nothing more than a “bully” seeking to feed his over-sized ego by perpetuating potentially dangerous misinformation while putting other people down, all to make himself look “smart”. Classic bully mentality. It’s too bad that his over-inflated ego has gotten in the way of his vast potential. This assessment is merely an observation, not a personal attack. Besides, what would I know, I’m just an “uneducated” nobody from nowhere… heh heh
1. Yes. That’s why I accept what is written in peer-reviewed journals, and I’m not so arrogant as to reject the collective science of those who have spent thousands of man-years researching and publishing articles in these fields.
2. I only accept authority in science and medicine. Oh, and my auto mechanic. I can’t change a spark plug. There is no evidence of a god, so I reject out of hand magical wizards in the sky. That’s just laziness of thought. Death is a natural biological activity, so not actually sure what that has to do with anything.
You’ve convinced me of nothing, except, well that you’re really good with logical fallacies.
Cherie LaPlace Interesting ad hominems and strawman arguments. Logical fallacies such as these are generally used by those lacking evidence for there positions.
Your failure to understand that science is not “religion” but is a method of understanding the natural universe. Ignorance is a method to invent sky wizards, or magical water potions like homeopathy, or to reject vaccinations because they do this or that (and they don’t), or that bananas contain a cancer killing agent (and they don’t). I believe in nothing that cannot be supported with empirical, published, peer-reviewed evidence. It’s quite simple really.
By the way, a bully, like those I observe in the pseudosciences, would delete inane, hostile comments like yours. I leave your comment for others to read to illustrate that how those who promote pseudosciences prefer personal attacks to real logical, civil discourse.
“It is not be adored. It is just logical. Yeah, I understand that people are so weak that they need their bibles, and beliefs in homeopaths and crap medicine.”
“man years” lol
Michael Simpson This is seriously good, are you a comedian? For how many man years?
Not a comedian, though I play one on Facebook. I could have used “man hours”, but “man years” sounded so much more dramatic. Since sarcasm is so difficult to grasp over the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-hour
I get it. Anyone who is a real scientist is someone who agrees with you and a pseudoscientist is anyone who doesn't.
That would be an ad hominem argument. Pseudoscience is a very specific set of parameters:
•Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims with an assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
•Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation with assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment.
•Lack of openness to testing by other experts, and evasion of peer review before publicizing results (called "science by press conference"). By remaining insulated from the peer review process, these proponents forgo the opportunity of corrective feedback from informed colleagues.
•Absence of progress and failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims, whereas scientific research programs make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time. By contrast, ideas may be accused of being pseudoscientific because they have remained unaltered despite contradictory evidence.
•Personalization of issues. Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results. In addition, attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims, also known as an ad hominem fallacy.
• Use of misleading language.
In other words, science is something that uses the scientific method, publishes in peer reviewed journals, is open to the bright light of criticism, and progresses by eliminating errors. That I stand on the side of science might is something about which I'm proud. That I stand against pseudoscience is pretty clear. That I point out that which is pseudoscience is easily supported by what is shown to be pseudoscience.
So, if you want to claim that bananas cure cancer, bring scientific evidence. If you're going to make that claim with a vague untestable claim, then it is absolutely pseudoscience. I brought vast science that shows that bananas do nothing for cancer. You bring an ad hominem. Case closed.
Michael Simpson
1. You obviously have alot of time to spend on the internet and I don't so I'll not be able to respond to every detail.
2. You also said something like, " But please, can you tell me where you got your Ph.D. in biochemistry?…etc." Isn't that breaking some incorrect arguement rule, like attacking the person instead of sticking with the argument? It's possible that an uneducated and ignorant somebody can speak facts and that doesn't change the facts. I'm not saying that that's what that person is, of course. (I don't know them.) I'm just pointing out your discrepancy.
3. You might keep in mind that in your audience there are individuals that do not have as much faith (if any), confidence, and adoration in your science and scientists as you do. Oh yes, I know, that means that there is something wrong with THEM.
1. No I don't spend a lot of time on the internet. I have a very high level of education. I manage my blog. I am a science writer. All else is some odd ad hominem from you.
2. No. If someone is going to make an argument from authority, then I want to know the basis of their authority. If someone is going to argue that they know more than me about say, astronomy, and it's Neil deGrasse Tyson, well, I surrender. I'll still demand evidence, but I'll defer. Still, there are no facts in science. That is an error in understanding about science. Science deals in evidence, and absent evidence, it is nothing more than conjecture. It is ignorant if someone cannot or refuses to provide evidence. And demanding evidence is my job as a skeptic. If someone refuses to provide evidence, they may as well shut up, because it's like talking to the wall.
3. Science is not based on faith. Science is a methodology for understanding the natural world. It is simply a system to acquire knowledge, it is not magic, it is not belief, it is not faith. It generates hypotheses, it tests them, it repeatedly tests them, then analyzes the data from the tests, then it publishes it. It is not be adored. It is just logical. Yeah, I understand that people are so weak that they need their bibles, and beliefs in homeopaths and crap medicine.
Skeptics are not preachers, we don't expect to convert anyone, and we don't think people will go to some imaginary hell if they're not convinced of our arguments. But if I can convince one parent to get their child vaccinated, or one person who realizes that they're not going to cure cancer by eating a banana and gets real treatment for cancer, then I've done a good thing for the world.
1. You're not the only person in the world with "a very high level of education." Funny that you should mention it.
2. Speaking about authority (since you took the conversation the direction you did in #3), an authority is someone or something that has the "most" of something: education, money, power (legal or otherwise), say so, etc., and there are two authorities that will have the last word where you are concerned, and they are Death and God. And one of these days you're going to die and THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. Then you will know and your attitude will change. Until that time, I rest my case.
It's obvious that Michael is classic example of an over-educated, pseudo-intellectual malapert, emanating unparalleled arrogance. He displays self righteous indignation with an intense superiority complex by way of a "scientist complex"; yet, paradoxically, he is full of nothing but empty space since he's only able to regurgitate biased statistics. This is an effort to take the focus off of the fact that he is nothing but an indoctrinated, pontificating "know it all" who sorely lacks actual critical thinking skills. He doesn't realize that being "educated" is NOT the same as being intelligent, and lack of "education" is NOT the same as being "ignorant"! Michael has yet to learn these infinite truths, which is evident by the manner in which he quickly attempts to put down and personally attack anyone exhibiting that which he sorely lacks, because he perceives it as a threat to all he believes to be true. If anyone has the nerve to contradict his extremely biased views, he attempts to "expose" their "lack of education", which he incorrectly refers to as "ignorance", trying to nitpick them into them submission. Ironic, considering that he is so heavily biased/blinded by "journals, graphs, and statistics", that he, ultimately, is the truly ignorant one. Michael, and people like him, are essentially nothing but pseudo-humans only capable of retaining and regurgitating what they've been taught, which may, or may not be, accurate, rather than thinking for themselves. Michael is dangerously perpetuating science as the 'end all' answer without consideration that it is constantly evolving, and additionally is not exempt from corruption! He is arrogantly contributing to the destructive system of this world via an ironic facade of "skepticism", creating controversy regarding mainstream issues, while suppressing viable discourse with his dismissive arrogance. This quite literally makes him nothing more than a "bully" seeking to feed his over-sized ego by perpetuating potentially dangerous misinformation while putting other people down, all to make himself look "smart". Classic bully mentality. It's too bad that his over-inflated ego has gotten in the way of his vast potential. This assessment is merely an observation, not a personal attack. Besides, what would I know, I'm just an "uneducated" nobody from nowhere… heh heh
1. Yes. That's why I accept what is written in peer-reviewed journals, and I'm not so arrogant as to reject the collective science of those who have spent thousands of man-years researching and publishing articles in these fields.
2. I only accept authority in science and medicine. Oh, and my auto mechanic. I can't change a spark plug. There is no evidence of a god, so I reject out of hand magical wizards in the sky. That's just laziness of thought. Death is a natural biological activity, so not actually sure what that has to do with anything.
You've convinced me of nothing, except, well that you're really good with logical fallacies.
Cherie LaPlace Interesting ad hominems and strawman arguments. Logical fallacies such as these are generally used by those lacking evidence for there positions.
Your failure to understand that science is not "religion" but is a method of understanding the natural universe. Ignorance is a method to invent sky wizards, or magical water potions like homeopathy, or to reject vaccinations because they do this or that (and they don't), or that bananas contain a cancer killing agent (and they don't). I believe in nothing that cannot be supported with empirical, published, peer-reviewed evidence. It's quite simple really.
By the way, a bully, like those I observe in the pseudosciences, would delete inane, hostile comments like yours. I leave your comment for others to read to illustrate that how those who promote pseudosciences prefer personal attacks to real logical, civil discourse.
"It is not be adored. It is just logical. Yeah, I understand that people are so weak that they need their bibles, and beliefs in homeopaths and crap medicine."
"man years" lol
Michael Simpson This is seriously good, are you a comedian? For how many man years?
Not a comedian, though I play one on Facebook. I could have used "man hours", but "man years" sounded so much more dramatic. Since sarcasm is so difficult to grasp over the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-hour
Your pejorative use of the words “global warming denialist” gives me the clue you’re an ally when it comes to believing global warming will result in catastrophic results from atmospheric CO2. But there is more than just trumpeting evil CO2 because the fact of the matter is that CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas. If you have carefully read about Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 you would have discovered the mainstream climate scientists tried to hide their data and research and deny skeptical scientists the opportunity to examine the data and research to verify their assumptions and hypothesis as correct. Indeed, the world is warming but it’s due to many other factors besides CO2.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Denialism is a form of pseudoskepticism, or refusing to value real scientific data. And climate gate is quite amusing. The data was about one tiny bit of data, and not about trying to fix data but an honest discussion regarding statistical analysis. But even if they were fixing data, which they weren’t, that leaves the other 99.9% of the scientific data supporting climate change. You see, you’re using a strawman argument (climate gate), appeals to authority (unqualified “scientists” who dispute the authority of real climate scientists), and a political debate where there is not a scientific debate to pretend that you are skeptic.
What you are sir, is suffering from what we call the Dunning-Kruger effect. A serious cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. I trust science because climate scientists spend net thousands of years in total working to study this. You bring a couple of hours reading junk science on the internet. You propose a conspiracy where there is none. And guess what, if there were a conspiracy, we would have heard about it by now, because people spill their guts pretty quickly these days.
Tell you what. Bring peer reviewed evidence in a real scientific journal that global warming is caused by anything but humans, and we can talk. Otherwise, you might want to deal with your cognitive bias.
Peer review is broken! It’s a closed club which doesn’t allow opposing research to be evaluated. Empirical evidence trumps computer generated erroneous presumptions. Climate cycles every three decades and now the temperatures are on a downward trend. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Uh huh. Amusing pseudoscience. What else do you have from your 2 hours of google searches? Because I’m going to weigh that against Ph.D. level scientists who spent their lives in hard work researching details of climate change. Ultimately, society must recognize that science is not a democracy in which the side with the most votes or the loudest voices gets to decide what is right. It’s those who provide the best evidence, and whose evidence withstand the bright light of criticism.
Your Roy Spencer is an evolution denialist. That means his credentials in science is laughable at best. Oh yeah, his work is published in “Remote Sensing”, more pseudoscience. I think we’re done here, since you can’t bring any real science to the table, but a complete anti-science freak as your proof. Seriously lame. Once again, bring real science, and maybe I’ll respect your point of view. Bring junk science, and all you’re bringing is hot air.
What does his religion have to do with his climate science expertise? You’re just throwing ad hominems because you can’t refute his climate science research.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
You don’t seem to understand that Dr. Spencer’s results of the earth’s temperature is based on satellite data. I’d bet you believe the other NASA’s satellites surveying far distant planets like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn or Venus, yet you’re so biased you don’t believe the satellite data gathered by Dr. Spencer’s satellites launched by NASA. You seem so naive and believe the computer generated predictions of the temperature of our planet 50 or 100 years hence. These computer generated predictions aren’t worth the paper their printed on. They come from subjective cherry picking data by the lame steam climate scientists and the predictions range from 1.5 degree celsius to over 10 degrees celsius. Which do you think of these predictions is accurate? Oh, BTW, I’ve checked the Sceptical Science blog. It’s all junk based on computer projections for the future. This guy isn’t even skeptical. He sings in the same choir as Hansen, Mann, Jones and other same ilk.
OH, BTW, you’d get better education if you and some of your fellow travelers logged on to the WUWT blog. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for the past few years this blog has stomped all over the RealClimate blog many times over.
Spencer denies evolution so that alone proves he has no scientific credentials. Period. End of case. You provide evidence in the form of a website. That’s pretty pathetic, you know. I provide evidence in the form of…evidence. But you know, really, your scientific denialism is quite amusing. I haven’t read so much conspiracy theory in quite awhile. Next up, you want to explain chemtrails? Or that Obama was born in Kenya? Or that 9/11 was Jewish conspiracy?
When your science denying global warming conspiracists provide a lot of articles in peer-reviewed high impact journals, open themselves to conversation in large scientific conferences with criticism to their ideas and hypotheses, when they are able to test a null hypotheses and accept the scientific method, I’ll be willing to talk. But your conspiracy blog is not going to cut it. Really, this blog here works on real science, and real science matters.
So you’re changing subjects because you cannot find a rational response to my posts?? I’d like to ask you a simple question: Would you invest your life savings on a 100 year projection of what the stock market will do??? If you say “yes” you’re more naive than I could believe.
No, because your evidence is based on bad science, and you’re closed-minded to real science. Why should I waste my time? You’re pushing pseudoscience. There’s no way to respond to pseudoscience. I’ve seen your type before, I’ve been dealing with it forever. You bring me someone who denies evolution, which is fact, and then tries to deny global warming, which is also fact. I’m just humoring you, because I’m bored.
You have yet to present sets of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact journals that actually show a scientific controversy. What you are showing is nothing by rhetorical flourish. You love your ad hominems and strawman arguments, which are the license of those without scientific evidence.
Once again, scientific evidence is on my side. On yours, well, is nothing. I’m serious, absolutely nothing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
Let’s end this. You’re just too close-minded for further discussion, and my politeness level is limited.
Your pejorative use of the words "global warming denialist" gives me the clue you're an ally when it comes to believing global warming will result in catastrophic results from atmospheric CO2. But there is more than just trumpeting evil CO2 because the fact of the matter is that CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas. If you have carefully read about Climategate 1 and Climategate 2 you would have discovered the mainstream climate scientists tried to hide their data and research and deny skeptical scientists the opportunity to examine the data and research to verify their assumptions and hypothesis as correct. Indeed, the world is warming but it's due to many other factors besides CO2.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Denialism is a form of pseudoskepticism, or refusing to value real scientific data. And climate gate is quite amusing. The data was about one tiny bit of data, and not about trying to fix data but an honest discussion regarding statistical analysis. But even if they were fixing data, which they weren't, that leaves the other 99.9% of the scientific data supporting climate change. You see, you're using a strawman argument (climate gate), appeals to authority (unqualified "scientists" who dispute the authority of real climate scientists), and a political debate where there is not a scientific debate to pretend that you are skeptic.
What you are sir, is suffering from what we call the Dunning-Kruger effect. A serious cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes. I trust science because climate scientists spend net thousands of years in total working to study this. You bring a couple of hours reading junk science on the internet. You propose a conspiracy where there is none. And guess what, if there were a conspiracy, we would have heard about it by now, because people spill their guts pretty quickly these days.
Tell you what. Bring peer reviewed evidence in a real scientific journal that global warming is caused by anything but humans, and we can talk. Otherwise, you might want to deal with your cognitive bias.
Peer review is broken! It's a closed club which doesn't allow opposing research to be evaluated. Empirical evidence trumps computer generated erroneous presumptions. Climate cycles every three decades and now the temperatures are on a downward trend. http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Uh huh. Amusing pseudoscience. What else do you have from your 2 hours of google searches? Because I'm going to weigh that against Ph.D. level scientists who spent their lives in hard work researching details of climate change. Ultimately, society must recognize that science is not a democracy in which the side with the most votes or the loudest voices gets to decide what is right. It's those who provide the best evidence, and whose evidence withstand the bright light of criticism.
Your Roy Spencer is an evolution denialist. That means his credentials in science is laughable at best. Oh yeah, his work is published in "Remote Sensing", more pseudoscience. I think we're done here, since you can't bring any real science to the table, but a complete anti-science freak as your proof. Seriously lame. Once again, bring real science, and maybe I'll respect your point of view. Bring junk science, and all you're bringing is hot air.
What does his religion have to do with his climate science expertise? You're just throwing ad hominems because you can't refute his climate science research.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html
You don't seem to understand that Dr. Spencer's results of the earth's temperature is based on satellite data. I'd bet you believe the other NASA's satellites surveying far distant planets like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn or Venus, yet you're so biased you don't believe the satellite data gathered by Dr. Spencer's satellites launched by NASA. You seem so naive and believe the computer generated predictions of the temperature of our planet 50 or 100 years hence. These computer generated predictions aren't worth the paper their printed on. They come from subjective cherry picking data by the lame steam climate scientists and the predictions range from 1.5 degree celsius to over 10 degrees celsius. Which do you think of these predictions is accurate? Oh, BTW, I've checked the Sceptical Science blog. It's all junk based on computer projections for the future. This guy isn't even skeptical. He sings in the same choir as Hansen, Mann, Jones and other same ilk.
OH, BTW, you'd get better education if you and some of your fellow travelers logged on to the WUWT blog. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ for the past few years this blog has stomped all over the RealClimate blog many times over.
Spencer denies evolution so that alone proves he has no scientific credentials. Period. End of case. You provide evidence in the form of a website. That's pretty pathetic, you know. I provide evidence in the form of…evidence. But you know, really, your scientific denialism is quite amusing. I haven't read so much conspiracy theory in quite awhile. Next up, you want to explain chemtrails? Or that Obama was born in Kenya? Or that 9/11 was Jewish conspiracy?
When your science denying global warming conspiracists provide a lot of articles in peer-reviewed high impact journals, open themselves to conversation in large scientific conferences with criticism to their ideas and hypotheses, when they are able to test a null hypotheses and accept the scientific method, I'll be willing to talk. But your conspiracy blog is not going to cut it. Really, this blog here works on real science, and real science matters.
So you're changing subjects because you cannot find a rational response to my posts?? I'd like to ask you a simple question: Would you invest your life savings on a 100 year projection of what the stock market will do??? If you say "yes" you're more naive than I could believe.
No, because your evidence is based on bad science, and you're closed-minded to real science. Why should I waste my time? You're pushing pseudoscience. There's no way to respond to pseudoscience. I've seen your type before, I've been dealing with it forever. You bring me someone who denies evolution, which is fact, and then tries to deny global warming, which is also fact. I'm just humoring you, because I'm bored.
You have yet to present sets of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact journals that actually show a scientific controversy. What you are showing is nothing by rhetorical flourish. You love your ad hominems and strawman arguments, which are the license of those without scientific evidence.
Once again, scientific evidence is on my side. On yours, well, is nothing. I'm serious, absolutely nothing.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
Let's end this. You're just too close-minded for further discussion, and my politeness level is limited.
You shouldn't need to show a strong scientific argument for some non-anthropogenic cause for global warming to cast reasonable scientific doubt on the claims. Your requirement for that isn't sensible.
Michael Simpson Yes. It's about those who provide the best evidence. Unfortunately, the global warming debate is largely political. The pertinent question is whether the evidence and conclusions are sufficient to divert the spending of massive amounts of money. The predictions offered by climate scientists are too imprecise for me to vote, "yes."
Richard DeSousa , you say peer review is broken. What exactly do you mean with that? The primary difference between science and pseudoscience is that science is peer reviewed, and experiments and results can be recreated.
I tried finding a reference above to see what you are basing this on, I can't find it. Is that just an empty statement? What does broken mean?
Michael Simpson For those looking for peer reviewed papers that contain either criticism of the current anthropogenic models or contain results that support such criticism, look here:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Preface
The current list is at over 1000 publications. So here's the problem for the non-scientists. We know that science isn't determined by consensus. So we must ignore the much ballyhooed statement that consensus in on global warming's side (now changed to the politically wiser "climate change") So how does a lay person decide?
Jay, isn't that like saying I won't treat that massive tumor in my brain until I'm 100% certain it's cancer?
Yeah, it's political, and things are hard to sift through, but simple common sense says humans are polluting the planet at an increasing rate, and that it's impossible to sustain over the long run. The political part is understanding how fast that process is going not whether it's happening. You don't need a science degree to figure out that increasing the human population exponentially and increasing human fossil fuel consumption accordingly is going to lead to a disaster.
So who benefits from a total denial of any signs and symptoms? Certainly not the patient. Translated, in case that was too obscure: who benefits from pretending that humans are not having any negative impact on the environment, including climate? Certainly not humans.
My evidence is not based on computer projections a century hence. My evidence is empirical as depicted by Dr. Spencer's graph showing the decline in temperature rise. It's based on satellite data, the very same type of data every scientists believe when the data is of far away planets. I also would like to counter the owner of this blog for his persistent reference to the IPCC. It's projections of the temperature of the earth's future is way too high. It's like James Hansen's famous speech to the Congress in 1988 when Hansen predicted NYC would be underwater due to climate change. Here is another graph created by the Israeli physicist Dr. Nir Shaviv. The graph shows by how much the IPCC has overestimated the actual rise in temperature based on several scenarios. The graph is the second from the top. http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming No, Dr. Shaviv's article has not been peer reviewed because the mainstream climate scientist have prevented his research from being reviewed. But it brings up my point on which computer scenario do we believe since the IPCC has several to chose from in Dr. Shaviv's article.
"Jay, isn't that like saying I won't treat that massive tumor in my brain until I'm 100% certain it's cancer?"
No, for two reasons. 1) The evidence isn't nearly as clear as for a massive brain tumor. 2) The efficacy of the treatment is also largely unknown – especially considering that U.S. policy doesn't dictate "Earthling" policy.How much CO2 can we stop, at what cost, and what's the likely degree of benefit?
BTW, I've witnessed some cancer treatment up close and personal. Some treatments aren't necessarily better than the disease. It can be a tough call.
Lastly, this is a tough topic for online discussion and your comments seek to broaden the scope when I'd rather narrow it. So I won't respond to those broader questions.
Peer review isn't broken by any means. Where people get this is because of the editor for 'Climate Research' Chris de Freitas did accept a few papers from some friends. One of these papers was by Soon and Baliunas (2003) titled 'Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years' which has seen been refuted. Btw, I think that you should all know Soon and Baliunas said in this paper that the temperatures were about the same as they had always been so in turn it was used to oppose climate legislation. The paper had huge flaws like not taking into account moisture or dryness which somehow became equated with coolness and hotness. So I guess it was a win-win for the climate-deniers since they first had two people saying "nope, that's not it" and when it is refuted then yelling that its pal review ensues. Jay, did you read those papers? I didn't read them all but I can tell you that some are saying that other things may be going on as well. I personally think that its a combination of things that are working to change our climate and one of them is CO2 emissions so we are making it worse. I also want to make sure that everyone understands how science works, the whole testing-retesting, repeatability, etc. I also want to make sure that everyone knows the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
Carrie – No, I didn't read those thousand papers. I point to the resource to make it clear that there is peer reviewed work that doesn't support the claimed consensus. I've read a handful of papers and a handful of articles that seemed reasonable. I've read a few books. I've listened to a few debates that seemed to include good representatives. My opinion at this point in time is that there is good reason to think that we do have a warming trend and that some of it may be anthropogenic. A big problem is quantifying these things.
My main problem with the climate "hysteria" that I see in the press is that it isn't science, it is highly political. The "pro" side frequently uses non-scientific arguments as an means to persuade voters.
My other problem is that making climate forecasts seems to be very, very difficult. That explains, I think the broad range we see in warming forecasts where predicted warming varies by as much as 400% depending on the source. I strongly suspect that our best models are weak and that there are huge areas where mistakes could be being made. There is LOTS that we don't know that once known could affect our conclusions.Just accurately measuring global temperature is extremely difficult all by itself. Measuring it hundreds of years later seems to present even greater amounts of difficulty. And frankly, the majority of this is beyond reasonable review by politicians and the rank and file.
I don't think we have solid reasons to spend billions to try to slow or reverse the trend. I think those billions can have a more positive net effect on more humans if spent in other ways. I think there's a problem with telling billions of people in other countries that they can't burn fuels as we have done for the past 100 years as they try to pull themselves out of poverty. And when you speak about legislation that affects billions or maybe even trillions of dollars, you had best get very cynical very quickly about motivations. But that isn't science. That's just my opinion based on 53 years of living among human beans.
@ Carrie: At best, CO2 affects the temperature of the atmosphere at approximately 15%. Here is a study of what effects saturated H20 and saturated CO2 has on the atmosphere. http://www.randombio.com/co2.html As we can see the absorption of IR is far more for H20 than CO2 which makes H20 a much more effective greenhouse gas than CO2
The saturation data on H20 (water vapor and atmospheric CO2 is 1/3 down from the top of the page http://www.randombio.com/co2.html
Jay, you tell me you want to keep the conversation focused and not "broaden the scope", fair enough.
But you are the one who keeps on bringing up the politics. Do you or don't you want to bring the politics in? Because if you don't I suggest you stop using that as an argument.
The political controversy only relates to the extent of the damage, and what we can and should do about it, not to the fact that we are severely impacting our environment.
And again, pretending we should do nothing at all until the science is completely politics free (what world does that happen in, ever) is at best unreasonable and at worst intentionally obstructionist.
Jay, yes, politics is an issue in this and really shouldn't be. Of course, there's one way politics can get involved in SCIENCE and that's money. And Jay, I haven't seen much of that from the actual scientists doing the work. Its people outside of science who are mainly making this political and not using science. I also already said that I think that it is a combination of factors and one of them is CO2 emissions.
Richard, firstly, T.J. Nelson is a neuroscientist who doesn't collect data. Secondly, this "study" is not peer-reviewed. A good clue that its not peer-reviewed is that there are links to websites. Thirdly, the methodology and analyses are….questionable. Where's the feedbacks? Where's the actual temperatures? Fourthly, Goddard…. Reference 24, this person thinks that he can count the volume of ice from 2D images from satellites. I'm not even going to explain that one. Don't get me wrong I have respect for Nelson, he's done great work on Alzheimer's Disease research but he is no climatologist. Like him, I'm a biologist so I am by no means an expert on climatology.
Sabine – The global warming issue is inherently political because of the implications. I'm merely avoiding bringing in additional topics beyond global warming.
I never suggested that we should wait until the issue is politically free. Quit propping up straw men.
Carrie Griego As soon as someone decides to make a law or regulation – in other words, to take non-private action based on the claims – it becomes political. The more impactful the changes, the bigger the money, the more political it becomes.
Claims and evidence are two different things and its the evidence pointing to this occurring. It became political when people have something to gain or lose and invest money into politicians.
A forecast is not evidence even if it is based on evidence. People are asking for government action based on forecasts – based on claims asserting what will happen or what is likely to happen given that certain things do or do not happen.
You don't have to "invest" money into politicians to make something political. You need only to be seeking to have the government force others to do what you prefer. That makes it political. Of course, money is frequently a big factor in determining what people prefer. Few are immune.
You are not only citing a popular media source, you are citing a bad one, and not even that you are citing ablog on a bad one that does not even try to tackle the science of climate change but instead tries to attack the science with personal attacks on the scientists.
This ranks down there in scholarship with referring to the Flintstones to learn about dinosaurs. You are being fed BS and lapping it up.
There is no climate gate, it is a manufactured scandal. All the scientists were exonerated of any wrong doing after an extensive investigation and even if there was something there that does not change the fact that there is a tidalwave of evidence from all scientific disciplines supporting this and that denialists keep having to change their story as to whether it exists, what its causes are and how bad it will be while scientists have been steadily converging on a more and more accurate answer.
That fact that you say things like " because the fact of the matter is that CO2 is just a minor greenhouse gas." indicates that you really, really, really don't even start to begin to understand the basic science and that you are coming at this as a political issue not a matter of physical fact.
That is where Roy Spencer comes from. He hates the idea of government regulation and sees the fact of global warming as a threat to his political agenda so he pieces together little nonsensical bits of irrelevancies sufficient top confuse the scientifically illiterate.
Let me ask you a very straightforward question. What are the last 3 pieces of research you read from a major scientific journal?
Wait, you mean you have not read any of the actual science of climate change at all? How about any of the secondary reports like the IPCC or the consensus statements from all the worlds national academies of science? Could it be then that your opinion about this is incomplete and uninformed allowing you to be duped by people with an agenda?
I'm not personally a global warming denier. I do, however, tend to believe the right question is not "if", but rather "so what?" The earth has been hotter, and she just rolls with the punches. I'm also pretty sure it would result in more arable land. But that's not really the reason I'm responding.
I'd never heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. So I looked it up and happened to notice that you cut and paste the entire definition from wikipedia. I enjoyed your article, but the hauteur you've displayed in the comments section is a little undermined by evidence that you copied wikipedia (without credit no less).
Everyone who believes the crap on FB needs to take a course in Biology.
Then I’d have nothing to write about. But it’s not just FB, it’s all over the internet.
I suppose pleanty could be written about checking for psuedoscience in the main stream media.
Michael Simpson That makes it true.
Amy Martin plenty not “pleanty” make sure you spelling is correct Amy otherwise your great counter arguments will easily lose credit and you will appear “uneducated.” Scientific arguments need credibility otherwise classed as myth old wives tales folklore.
Spelling is an indicator of education. Sarcasm isn’t either. However, providing evidence to support a scientific argument is.
Pardon me, I meant to state that spelling is NOT an indicator of education.
Everyone who believes the crap on FB needs to take a course in Biology.
Then I'd have nothing to write about. But it's not just FB, it's all over the internet.
I suppose pleanty could be written about checking for psuedoscience in the main stream media.
Michael Simpson That makes it true.
Amy Martin plenty not "pleanty" make sure you spelling is correct Amy otherwise your great counter arguments will easily lose credit and you will appear "uneducated." Scientific arguments need credibility otherwise classed as myth old wives tales folklore.
Spelling is an indicator of education. Sarcasm isn't either. However, providing evidence to support a scientific argument is.
Pardon me, I meant to state that spelling is NOT an indicator of education.
Critical thinking is important as well when dealing with “real science”. Scientists are paid to ease the minds of the masses or to minimize the perception of risks involved. Yes, this is the same “science” that says “immunize your children” under the assumption that the benefits outweigh the risks –all the while risks are often not known or taken seriously. The same science that pushes antidepressants on millions when they have been proven ineffective–
(anything that claims to help depression but has suicidal thoughts as a possible side effect, to me sounds a bit risky).
No need to validate that claim as you have all seen the commercials yourself and there are pleanty of things like this. Later we will come to find a class-action lawsuit on whatever medication it was that didn’t get tested enough…and you see those on commercials as well. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t generate a lot of faith in what “real” scientists have to say–especially as they have large corperations invested in their “science”.
Scientists say there is an acceptable amount of mercury to be ingested, do you believe that as well?
It is interesting that you began with the vaccine debate and went on to debunk a story about bananas…it does make one wonder…
Okay, so the antidepressants weren’t proven ineffective…that was just in my mind. sorry lol
My point is, if you want real science the money has to be taken out of they way–in the same way –if we want legislation to represent the people, we must remove money from the equation.
I started with vaccines, because that’s the rage, but the example is with bananas. But please, can you tell me where you got your Ph.D. in biochemistry? Virology? Immunology? Where did you do your post-doctoral studies? Please list out your peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals? Where are you currently on faculty? Because you expect me to take your amateur, university of google claims based on a couple of hours of research (oh hell, I’ll give you a couple of days of wandering the backwoods of the internet) compared to individuals who have spent lifetimes of study in the area.
Please provide me with any evidence of the levels of “mercury” in vaccines? Do you understand the type of molecule that is bound with the mercury? Do you know how the blood handles that mercury? Do you understand the difference between that form of mercury and elemental mercury? Do you know how elemental mercury interacts with the nervous system compared to other types of mercury? Do you know the levels of molecules of organic mercury in your foods? Do you know the difference between ingested mercury and injected mercury? Do you know how much more mercury is ingested per year per the amount injected? Do you have access to peer-reviewed journal articles that describe the differences? Do you know how the dose-response of each type on the immune system?
You know what, why don’t you go to college, graduate school, and get a postdoctoral fellowship in a great university. Maybe when you do, studying how organic mercury has an effect, if it does, on the human body, then come here and talk trash. I doubt you will, because you might actually be an informed person, then will change your tune. But you can’t, because you’re an arrogant person who thinks their 2 days of internet research is somehow equivalent to hard work invested by real scientists who invest their lives. You presume to know so much, but you couldn’t even walk in the shadow of a real scientist. The best you can do is provide logical fallacies, ad hominems and strawman arguments, because, as is well-known to anyone with a bit of intelligence, fallacious arguments are the tool of those who lack evidence for their position.
Amy Martin Actually, the only thing you’ve said correct. In a large clinical trial, some anti-depressants were shown to be no better than placebos when used alone. Most psychiatrists now know that SSRI’s need to be used in combination with other anti-psychotics to provide relief for certain disorders. But you only have half the story, which is why you need to go to college and grad school.
Do the research for free? Do you know that a simple 3000 patient clinical trial costs over $75 million dollars, and that’s for a simple one? You might think the world is filled with conspiracies and hateful, evil people, but I don’t. Even when money is spent there, when they fail they fail, and the drug or device doesn’t make it to the market. Happens all the time. Over 45% (nearly half) of drugs that enter Phase III clinical trials (that’s the last phase before getting FDA approval) FAIL at that point, and never get approved for marketing. That’s after Big Pharma has spent probably close to $500 million to maybe $1 Billion to get to that point. So, if the world was as evil as you say it is, then the number would be higher. In cancer drugs, the failure rate is even worse, close to 95%, where the payback would be much greater if they succeeded. So quit the strawman arguments.
Wow! I guess I must have “struck a nerve” –of course I didn’t mean that in any verifiable scientific way.
– I don’t remember claiming to be able to walk in the shadows of any real scientists–really just sounds kinda creepy to me=P. I am not arrogant, I’m just cautious. I have children that I care about enough to question the practice of vaccination and to not just blindly throw the warning sheet given to me into the wastebasket because they do make for some difficult reading.
I do not presume to know so much (in fact I will admit that I know very little)–what I do know is what claims I have seen, which have been displayed on television and what little insight is added from experience durring my tiny existance. Observation is the first step to the scientific method right?
I am not an expert=P
Okay so I didn’t specify what I meant by “out of the way” I meant that it is a conflict of interest for the “purly objective scientsts” intending to prove the safety and effectiveness of the drug to be paid by those who want to sell the same product.
This is the same cinflict of interest involved in legislation as well–where the money buys the laws.
Michael Simpson “In a large clinical trial, some anti-depressants were shown to be no better than placebos when used alone.” and I only have half of the story? In many cases as most have wittnessed on television there are possible side effects which are worse than the ailment they were meant to treat. It is important to consider short term solutions in some cases, but the more I see the less I trust these solutions.
Michael Simpson The difference between bananas and vaccines is that bananas have been proven safe=) I know…you hate me…my unintelligent views ect
What’s the risk in believing the bs about the bananas? They are known to be a healthy snack.
Now ask yourself what’s the risk in using something that has more warnings(usually a booklet) than redeeming qualities(IMhO)
Critical thinking is important as well when dealing with "real science". Scientists are paid to ease the minds of the masses or to minimize the perception of risks involved. Yes, this is the same "science" that says "immunize your children" under the assumption that the benefits outweigh the risks –all the while risks are often not known or taken seriously. The same science that pushes antidepressants on millions when they have been proven ineffective–
(anything that claims to help depression but has suicidal thoughts as a possible side effect, to me sounds a bit risky).
No need to validate that claim as you have all seen the commercials yourself and there are pleanty of things like this. Later we will come to find a class-action lawsuit on whatever medication it was that didn't get tested enough…and you see those on commercials as well. I'm sorry, but that doesn't generate a lot of faith in what "real" scientists have to say–especially as they have large corperations invested in their "science".
Scientists say there is an acceptable amount of mercury to be ingested, do you believe that as well?
It is interesting that you began with the vaccine debate and went on to debunk a story about bananas…it does make one wonder…
Okay, so the antidepressants weren't proven ineffective…that was just in my mind. sorry lol
My point is, if you want real science the money has to be taken out of they way–in the same way –if we want legislation to represent the people, we must remove money from the equation.
I started with vaccines, because that's the rage, but the example is with bananas. But please, can you tell me where you got your Ph.D. in biochemistry? Virology? Immunology? Where did you do your post-doctoral studies? Please list out your peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals? Where are you currently on faculty? Because you expect me to take your amateur, university of google claims based on a couple of hours of research (oh hell, I'll give you a couple of days of wandering the backwoods of the internet) compared to individuals who have spent lifetimes of study in the area.
Please provide me with any evidence of the levels of "mercury" in vaccines? Do you understand the type of molecule that is bound with the mercury? Do you know how the blood handles that mercury? Do you understand the difference between that form of mercury and elemental mercury? Do you know how elemental mercury interacts with the nervous system compared to other types of mercury? Do you know the levels of molecules of organic mercury in your foods? Do you know the difference between ingested mercury and injected mercury? Do you know how much more mercury is ingested per year per the amount injected? Do you have access to peer-reviewed journal articles that describe the differences? Do you know how the dose-response of each type on the immune system?
You know what, why don't you go to college, graduate school, and get a postdoctoral fellowship in a great university. Maybe when you do, studying how organic mercury has an effect, if it does, on the human body, then come here and talk trash. I doubt you will, because you might actually be an informed person, then will change your tune. But you can't, because you're an arrogant person who thinks their 2 days of internet research is somehow equivalent to hard work invested by real scientists who invest their lives. You presume to know so much, but you couldn't even walk in the shadow of a real scientist. The best you can do is provide logical fallacies, ad hominems and strawman arguments, because, as is well-known to anyone with a bit of intelligence, fallacious arguments are the tool of those who lack evidence for their position.
Amy Martin Actually, the only thing you've said correct. In a large clinical trial, some anti-depressants were shown to be no better than placebos when used alone. Most psychiatrists now know that SSRI's need to be used in combination with other anti-psychotics to provide relief for certain disorders. But you only have half the story, which is why you need to go to college and grad school.
Do the research for free? Do you know that a simple 3000 patient clinical trial costs over $75 million dollars, and that's for a simple one? You might think the world is filled with conspiracies and hateful, evil people, but I don't. Even when money is spent there, when they fail they fail, and the drug or device doesn't make it to the market. Happens all the time. Over 45% (nearly half) of drugs that enter Phase III clinical trials (that's the last phase before getting FDA approval) FAIL at that point, and never get approved for marketing. That's after Big Pharma has spent probably close to $500 million to maybe $1 Billion to get to that point. So, if the world was as evil as you say it is, then the number would be higher. In cancer drugs, the failure rate is even worse, close to 95%, where the payback would be much greater if they succeeded. So quit the strawman arguments.
Wow! I guess I must have "struck a nerve" –of course I didn't mean that in any verifiable scientific way.
– I don't remember claiming to be able to walk in the shadows of any real scientists–really just sounds kinda creepy to me=P. I am not arrogant, I'm just cautious. I have children that I care about enough to question the practice of vaccination and to not just blindly throw the warning sheet given to me into the wastebasket because they do make for some difficult reading.
I do not presume to know so much (in fact I will admit that I know very little)–what I do know is what claims I have seen, which have been displayed on television and what little insight is added from experience durring my tiny existance. Observation is the first step to the scientific method right?
I am not an expert=P
Okay so I didn't specify what I meant by "out of the way" I meant that it is a conflict of interest for the "purly objective scientsts" intending to prove the safety and effectiveness of the drug to be paid by those who want to sell the same product.
This is the same cinflict of interest involved in legislation as well–where the money buys the laws.
Michael Simpson "In a large clinical trial, some anti-depressants were shown to be no better than placebos when used alone." and I only have half of the story? In many cases as most have wittnessed on television there are possible side effects which are worse than the ailment they were meant to treat. It is important to consider short term solutions in some cases, but the more I see the less I trust these solutions.
Michael Simpson The difference between bananas and vaccines is that bananas have been proven safe=) I know…you hate me…my unintelligent views ect
What's the risk in believing the bs about the bananas? They are known to be a healthy snack.
Now ask yourself what's the risk in using something that has more warnings(usually a booklet) than redeeming qualities(IMhO)
Ask your doctor before thinking…Possible side effects include…
I am beginning to think I may be more sceptical than you…oh but my sceptisizm is based on nothing as I have no big money scientists back it up. Scientists can be wrong too. Or is that impossible since they have peer reviews from those who are paid by the same people?
Honestly, sometimes I forget what the drug is meant to treat after I hear the long list of side effects…they must know this too, because they always remind us at the end of the commercial.
Michael Simpson BTW<Bananas ARE "all the rage" great in a smoothie and full of potassium. Tis' a fact! Lighten up a little=P have a banana, they are nutritious!
Oops, that should read skeptical/skeptisism not sceptical/scepticism I still don't know if I'm right…I never claimed the ability to walk in the shadow of any proficient spellers either.
1. Anecdotal stories about anti-depressants shown on TV compared to clinical trials published in peer reviewed journals is not a valid comparison.
2. Obviously, you failed to read what the point of the bananas were. Someone was claiming that bananas cured cancer. They don't. People claim that vaccines have mercury, that they shed viruses, blah blah blah. They don't. Both stories require digging, and both stories can be debunked with real science. Both bananas and vaccines are safe. That's the comparison.
3. Possible side effects? ALL medications have side effects. The point is whether the benefits exceed the risks. The vaccine benefits (saving children's lives) vastly exceed the minor risks.
4. You exhibit what is called "pseudoskepticism." Scientific skepticism requires someone to review and understand scientific evidence before rejecting or accepting a hypothesis. Pseudoskepticism, which you have, is rejecting all evidence except that which supports your own closely loved hypothesis. You should understand the difference. True skepticism is open-mindedness. Pseudoskepticism is being close-minded to evidence. There is no evidence that supports the anti-vaccine movement. None. Seriously, there is just none.
5. The sides effects are so rare. 100 million vaccine doses are given and a few hundred effects, some as minor as well, pain at the injection site. Of course, your observation bias fails to notice the thousands of lives that are saved. It's a cognitive dissonance that I fail to grasp.
6. Already said that bananas are delicious. They aren't going to cure cancer however. And once again, you fail miserably to get the point.
Okay, if you say so, I failed to get your point. Don't get your bananas in a bunch about it=P you ok?
Michael Simpson May as well delete my comments as they have added no real insight whatsoever…was hoping to find a shadow of a sense of humor.
Or much better yet, leave up your generous scolding to warn everyone that they had better not mess with you. I wonder which it will be…
Wait…I finally got it, BANANAS DON'T KILL CANCER!! This is outrageous!
Or is it that bananas and vaccines are equally safe?
The point, Michael, is you're bananas!
"There is no evidence that supports the anti-vaccine movement. None. Seriously, there is just none." <and this statement will not be sattled with the burden of proof. Seriously? Quite a claim! Are you so open-minded that you have all scientific knowlage at your disposal at any given time to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is absolutely no evidence to support the claims? Does the truth exist before a scientist finds it?
So let me get this straight – because scientists don't possess 100% of the data, their claims are then of equal validity to an argument from ignorance based on a total misunderstanding of a small part of the available evidence taken wildly out of context? That's neither schepticism nor an open-minded pluralism; it's just disingenuous, prejudiced cherry-picking.
I was going to try to defend you from Mr. Simpson's rather rough handling, but with this statement, I fear you've retroactively earned it.
Seth Gilman "So let me get this straight – because scientists don't possess 100% of the data, their claims are then of equal validity to an argument from ignorance based on a total misunderstanding of a small part of the available evidence taken wildly out of context? That's neither schepticism nor an open-minded pluralism; it's just disingenuous, prejudiced cherry-picking."
Very well written! Also it is true if your replace the word "scientists" with the word "citizens". Thank you!
Now lets see how this reads:
So let me get this straight – because citizens don't possess 100% of the data, their claims are then of equal validity to an argument from ignorance based on a total misunderstanding of a small part of the available evidence taken wildly out of context? That's neither schepticism nor an open-minded pluralism; it's just disingenuous, prejudiced cherry-picking.
You made that one just for me=)
Actually, not true at all, because, believe it or not, it takes a great deal of training and experience to be able to successfully and correctly parse data. Someone without that might happen on an outside-the-box solution on rare occasions, but the statistics really are in favor of the scientific and medical community, where, God knows, there is enough competitiveness and ego to avoid internal groupthink.
Yes, Virginia, expertise counts. And it counts for a great deal.
I thought about changing the last line to say "That's neither schepticism nor an open-minded pluralism; it's just disingenuous, prejudiced banana-picking."
I thought I would at least mention it in honor of the author, Michael who has really generated a fun topic and respectfully engaged in a conversation with me and reaffirmed all of my suspicions to be true: I am not a doctor or scientist!
This reality totally blows my mind! Thanks again Michael=D
revised reply:
To imply that ordinary citizens who are not doctors or scientists have nothing to say… That's neither schepticism nor an open-minded pluralism; it's just disingenuous, prejudiced banana-picking.
I think you missed something about the whole point of Simpson's blog. It *is* for the layman. Non-experts do have important and valuable things to say, but only when they have the skills and tools to honestly discern the useful information from the static. Because otherwise, it's so much half-cocked knee-jerkery.
It's not an appeal to authority to defer to those who can demonstrate serious study and command of the issues.
Surely, there are a lot of scientists doing good work in good integrity. I'm not saying that we don't need science–of course we do.
On the other hand, I do tend to be somewhat skeptical of
"the benefit outweighs the risk"
line of thought. The statement above is scientific concensus, that makes it official.
It's also an opinion from those who may not care as much for individual child as much as "the greater good"<another line of thought that gives me the creeps sometimes…they may be willing to make a sacrifice where I wouldn't. It is the great arrogance of those who manipulate the masses by such means which I have found very unbecoming.
But that's not the risk/benefit analysis they're talking about. The risk isn't for everyone else, with the benefit for your child alone. The risk is the small one of an adverse reaction compared to the far greater risk of lacking immunity for deadly diseases, both as individual and as society. The two are not in conflict. And if there is a pressing risk – say, your child has a severe egg allergy and the serum has egg-derived proteins in it – then no doctor would recommend a vaccine that was likely to cause harm. But absent that factor, absent that contingency, the benefit outweighs the risk *for your child as well.* Further, it is unethical to piggyback off the immunity of the general population, because the resulting collective action problem if more people did that would drop us below a safe immunization threshold, and leave everyone at great risk for epidemic. And to decide that the community (including you and your kid) *should* assume that risk simply because you read somewhere that something which doesn't cause autism and wasn't even used in vaccines when the study being willfully and criminally misinterpreted was performed will nonetheless make your baby special for life, is dangerous and disturbing.
Question: Wouldn't it be safe to say that we can add the word 'unknown' to the list on both categories under 'benefits' and 'risks'? Isn't this especially true for those like myself who do not have a background in science?
Again, argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Just because you don't know a lot and someone else doesn't know a little, does not make the gaps in knowledge equivalent. And in the case of vaccine risks, we know much because we have access to massive studies and reams of statistics that support the safety and efficacy of the modern vaccine regimen. The unknown unknowns are negligible compared to the known knowns.
Why am I even up arguing this when I could be asleep?
http://xkcd.com/386/
I need a hobby.
I suppose I will have to resort to thinking for myself as long as I have this option.
Reflexive contrarianism is no more thinking for oneself than is total submission to the herd mentality.
"they may be willing to make a sacrifice where I wouldn't." I feel the need to clarify this statement. I suppose I used the word "sacrifice" because it is syononymous with "the greater good" line of thought in my mind. Also I meant "a sacrifice" to read "a small percentage of sacrifices in the grand scheme of "saving millions of lives"
I think that the burden of proof that said hypodermic practices are safe is on those who are telling us it is safe–not on those who question the safety of those practices.
On the other hand I haven't heard of anyone questioning the safety of ingesting bananas…am I missing anything? Surely I am, but just too sleepy to realize it.
How do we know "The unknown unknowns are negligible compared to the known knowns." If the unknowns are truely unknown (maybe even for scientists) how then could we know wether they are negligible or not? Last I checked, the word "negligible" is subjective.
Seth Gilman Cute comic…lol, thanks for the link.
Seth, do you have any children? I have four, and I got them all vaccinated. That is a lot of experience in vaccination. When you take your child in to be vaccinated you are given the information about the drug on a sheet of paper. Have you seen these? An entire sheet of paper full of small print and not so easy to understand. They don't expect you to read it or understand it…before making a decision on it. If you ask questions, they will do their best to set your mind at ease and alleviate your concerns within the time frame given, but they are often too busy to give it much thought.
Yes, I had my children vaccinated against known diseases at the time, I have not and do not plan to accept any flu vaccinations.
Attacking the person, not the person's argument. Hmmm…
Michael Simpson Tell me how a whole nation believed Hitler's words on a science that is questionable today- Namely Eugenics.
"Scientists are paid to ease the minds of the masses or to minimize the perception of risks involved."
Where the hell did you get that idea? Who exactly pays them to do this? Talk about self-serving BS. Can you show me a grant application that has anywhere on it something about putting the minds of the public at ease?
Scientists are usually the first to raise alarm about real issues and it is the popular magazines, politcians and corporation that try to cover it up.
It was scientist that raised the concerns about low level radiation and had to fight the politicians defense department to do it. It was scientists that brought the problems of DDT and other pesticides to the public's attention. Freon, asbestos, leaded gasoline, nuclear winter, DES, the Dalkon Shield, Animal fat, transfatty-acids, PCB's, ma-huang, phen-fen, cox-2 inhibitors, tobacco and on…
The alternative health community didn't to squat except sometimes echoed what the scientists were saying in a distorted way.
What scientists don't do start hysterical rumors based on types of evidence proven to be faulty. Nor do they think they are experts on a topic because they have read a bunch of opinion pieces and unsourced claims about it.
The reason I landed on this article about bananas and TNF is because I like to look for evidence when I see posts like this. Your article sounds logical, and I'll likely look up a couple more sources for information as well. None of this is going to stop me from eating bananas.
Here's the rub. I tend to agree with Amy's sentiment. Whether anyone wants to nut up and admit it or not, our little country is becoming / has become a corporatocracy. The will of the people matters less each passing day compared to the will of those who have monetary muscle such as special interests and corps. They've basically bought D.C. at this point. The FDA is a joke, in my opinion.
There are studies and counter studies about everything all over the internet. The water is so murky for your average person that no one knows what to believe or who to listen to anymore. This leads to shoulder-shrugging comments like "well, everything causes cancer anyway".
Look at all the mess surrounding climate change. How many "scientific studies" were purchased and published by people and corporations who want people to keep using oil like it's going to be viable forever? How about this latest BS article to come out that states that organic food is no healthier than non-organic, but in the same article noted that organic food doesn't (shouldn't) have chemical pesticides. In my mind, having fewer pesticides makes organic foods healthier, and I'm not arguing nutritional value here. Science has decided that a certain amount of pesticides in our bodies are "ok". Well, how about those pesticides with the countless other largely unregulated poison molecules science is letting slip by?
There seems to be a consensus that cancer has been on the rise over time, but I no one wants to point the finger at any man-made causes. Is it dark magics? In the mean time, I'll just err on the side of eating healthier organic foods, avoiding GMOs (and voting for labeling), and just generally disregarding propaganda articles about how good all those chemicals are for us.
Eat bananas instead of manufactured crap. If you can, get ones that are truly organic. Odds are you will be better off than if you don't.
Are you serious? Do you know how often "independent studies" are purchased and published by corporations and special interests who have an agenda? Why do you think the public is so confused about what's real and what isn't. Do yourself a favor and go read up on the history of the climate change debate if you want a huge example. Hell, some idiot republicans are still beating that drum.
Nice..
Nice..
Oh… big shoe dropping here. The study was done on mice, not human beans….
Hahaha. I just answered you!
Oh well, points made.
What does big shoe dropping mean?
It means now we have the rest of the story or perhaps the conclusion. Finding the study and finding that it was done on mice further removes the notion that the study tells us anything useful about human nutrition.
So the study was exaggerated.
No. Reading deeper into the study revealed that it was done on mice – meaning (concluding) it is tough to relate the results directly to human nutrition. The various pop-culture articles both mis-reported and exaggerated the study.
The study itself is was it is. Those who pushed the internet meme didn’t just exaggerate it, they totally misinterpreted it. The paper made no claim that bananas produced tumor necrosis factor. In fact, it is nearly impossible that a plant of any kind would, by random evolutionary probability, produce tumor necrosis factor, since it has no use for a plant. The protein evolved as a part of the vertebrate immune system.
Good points about pseudo-science, but in this case there is real science behind the claim. The pop versions have mangle it a bit though. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fstr/15/3/15_3_275/_pdf
Pseudoscience always attempts to bolster its claims with some real science. However, the Japanese studies falter from many deficiencies:
1. It’s a mouse model. You cannot believe how many animal models fail to transfer to humans. I forget the exact percentage, but if I recall correctly, it’s below 10%.
2. The article is published in a low impact journal. This journal is <1.0, which indicates a very low quality journal.
3. I dispute the inference that injecting banana extract intraperitoneally can have an inference for ingesting a banana orally. Can we induce the same immune subsystems in the same way? Doubtful.
4. What is the clinical significance of what was induced? It could be bad.
5. No one has repeated this data.
Color me skeptical.
no.
He retracts his comments below. It is a big fat no.
Hmmm … I don’t recall seeing the link to the actual study in your original article. I remember doing a fair bit of digging to find it and then posting the link here. Was that added later or is my memory fried? If it were added later, there should be a note to that effect.
At the start where ‘here’ is highlighted is actually a link to the same site as you attached. But, Thank you. Also i agree with Mich on TNF evolution, although something similar being produced either in the plant or in the mouse’s body from the distilled extract is increadibly unlikely it’s not impossible and absorbtion of macromolecules has be proved insumountably; and digenstion of functional macromolecules happens! I see it that the original article was not proof of the cliams made by other later but it supports a plauseable theory and this article does not debunct it. Although trust ‘health-food-specialists’ to take a scientifically proven fact change it to tell peope a partially understood half cocked theory!
The article was the original “Japanese scientists” that was part of the meme. It was never intended to either prove or debunk the meme, but it was used by the health food woo pushers as their “proof.” I review that article more thoroughly in a more recent posting on this blog, but it does not mention anything about a banana producing TNF. Which it wouldn’t do. The probability of a plant producing a protein that just happened to exactly mimic a human immunological factor is pretty close to impossible, since it wouldn’t have a similar effect on the plant. But I guess there could be some convergence in some protein where it would have similar structure but different effects. I don’t know of any however.
Nicely done though Mich. Good article!
I know that there’s a link now. I just don’t recall it being there weeks ago when I made my initial reply. If I had seen it, I wouldn’t have searched for it. I have two pet peeves with many online articles. 1) No publication date. 2) Modifications made at later dates without some indication that there was a modification. While it is possible that I overlooked the first bullet item that is based on the actual paper, I don’t think that’s what happened.
Oh… big shoe dropping here. The study was done on mice, not human beans….
What does big shoe dropping mean?
It means now we have the rest of the story or perhaps the conclusion. Finding the study and finding that it was done on mice further removes the notion that the study tells us anything useful about human nutrition.
So the study was exaggerated.
No. Reading deeper into the study revealed that it was done on mice – meaning (concluding) it is tough to relate the results directly to human nutrition. The various pop-culture articles both mis-reported and exaggerated the study.
The study itself is was it is. Those who pushed the internet meme didn't just exaggerate it, they totally misinterpreted it. The paper made no claim that bananas produced tumor necrosis factor. In fact, it is nearly impossible that a plant of any kind would, by random evolutionary probability, produce tumor necrosis factor, since it has no use for a plant. The protein evolved as a part of the vertebrate immune system.
Good points about pseudo-science, but in this case there is real science behind the claim. The pop versions have mangle it a bit though. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/fstr/15/3/15_3_275/_pdf
no.
He retracts his comments below. It is a big fat no.
Hmmm … I don't recall seeing the link to the actual study in your original article. I remember doing a fair bit of digging to find it and then posting the link here. Was that added later or is my memory fried? If it were added later, there should be a note to that effect.
At the start where 'here' is highlighted is actually a link to the same site as you attached. But, Thank you. Also i agree with Mich on TNF evolution, although something similar being produced either in the plant or in the mouse's body from the distilled extract is increadibly unlikely it's not impossible and absorbtion of macromolecules has be proved insumountably; and digenstion of functional macromolecules happens! I see it that the original article was not proof of the cliams made by other later but it supports a plauseable theory and this article does not debunct it. Although trust 'health-food-specialists' to take a scientifically proven fact change it to tell peope a partially understood half cocked theory!
The article was the original "Japanese scientists" that was part of the meme. It was never intended to either prove or debunk the meme, but it was used by the health food woo pushers as their "proof." I review that article more thoroughly in a more recent posting on this blog, but it does not mention anything about a banana producing TNF. Which it wouldn't do. The probability of a plant producing a protein that just happened to exactly mimic a human immunological factor is pretty close to impossible, since it wouldn't have a similar effect on the plant. But I guess there could be some convergence in some protein where it would have similar structure but different effects. I don't know of any however.
Nicely done though Mich. Good article!
I know that there's a link now. I just don't recall it being there weeks ago when I made my initial reply. If I had seen it, I wouldn't have searched for it. I have two pet peeves with many online articles. 1) No publication date. 2) Modifications made at later dates without some indication that there was a modification. While it is possible that I overlooked the first bullet item that is based on the actual paper, I don't think that's what happened.
.
hmmmm………..
Meaning?
Hi Tracy,
.
hmmmm………..
Hi Tracy,
Thanks for the refresher on critical reading/thinking. I’ll be reposting on my Facebook page.
Now, a word about English usage. Please consider replacing “is” with “are” and “are” with “is” in Step 5. [It may be helpful for you to diagram the sentences.]
Thanks for the catch! And thanks for the repost.
“a press release” is singular last time I checked, dingaling
Unhh, thanks for your feedback here Ross, but you’re a little late to the party.
My comment was posted almost a month ago. Clearly, copy editing has occurred in the interim (thanks, Michael).
I may indeed be a “dingaling” (opinions vary), but I’m not likely to give much credence to a critic whose punctuation and capitalization appears to be totally random.
To be objective you have to suppress your ego. Insults are emotional. Scientists are not always objective. Everything they do is guided by motive, and what is motive is emotive.
no creedence, but exposure. tnx
Thanks for the refresher on critical reading/thinking. I'll be reposting on my Facebook page.
Now, a word about English usage. Please consider replacing "is" with "are" and "are" with "is" in Step 5. [It may be helpful for you to diagram the sentences.]
"a press release" is singular last time I checked, dingaling
Unhh, thanks for your feedback here Ross, but you're a little late to the party.
My comment was posted almost a month ago. Clearly, copy editing has occurred in the interim (thanks, Michael).
I may indeed be a "dingaling" (opinions vary), but I'm not likely to give much credence to a critic whose punctuation and capitalization appears to be totally random.
To be objective you have to suppress your ego. Insults are emotional. Scientists are not always objective. Everything they do is guided by motive, and what is motive is emotive.
no creedence, but exposure. tnx
http://www.herbcyclopedia.com/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=387&Itemid=193
You didn’t read my article. Everything presented in that article was filled with misinformation and inaccuracies. You cannot simply ingest TNF. Frankly, your article hardly qualifies as even slightly acceptable “scientific evidence”. Please read my article to see what qualifies.
Look at this article, it seems there is some scientific evidence!
Worth bearing in mind…
Worth bearing in mind…
[...] the average reader takes the time to separate the real science from the pseudoscience, you would assume that naturopaths actually have “cured diabetes”. Which they [...]
[...] discussed previously, it’s quite easy to spot pseudoscience in the popular press (and anti-vaccine blogs count as [...]