The upcoming 10:23 campaign has meant that homeopathy is on most skeptic’s minds. A recent blog post by @endless_psych got me thinking about being open minded and what evidence it would take to convince me that homeopathy had something to it. Aside from the obvious positive randomised, placebo (what’s the fucking difference between a homeopathic sugar pill and a placebo sugar pill I hear you cry!) controlled study I wanted to think a little bit about the ‘science’ behind homeopathy and came up with this simple test.

They claim that water has a memory and so therefore despite a 30C dilution containing not one molecule of active ingredient the water retains the memory of the ingredient and this is from where the remedy gets its potency. The more diluted the more potent. If there is anything wrong with my understanding of this then I invite homoeopathists to correct me in the comments.  

My simple test is this;

1. Take 10 different 30C remedies; Heph Sulph, Pulsatilla, Lycopdium, Arnica, Apis Mel, Argent Nit, Sepia, Thuja, Kali Phos, Kali Bich. (Purchased from your local Boots store of course)

 2. An independent adjudicator should now place the remedies in 10 separate numbered containers being sure to make a record of the numbers to the corresponding remedy. This should be done away from prying eyes.

 3. Another independent adjudicator should now take these containers and pass them to a homeopathic practitioner.

 4. The homeopathic practitioner is free to conduct as many tests as they deem necessary to identify what remedies correspond to what numbered containers.

 5. Should they be able to identify correctly all ten remedies then this would provide some evidence that despite the 30C dilution the remedies still contain some ‘memory’ of the initial active ingredient.

Please Note

While this would not completely convince me that homeopathy worked it would go a little way to proving the fundamental memory premise. While 10 out of 10 may seem a little strict should a similar test be done with 10 traditional medicines, aspirin, paracetamol etc I am confident a chemist would correctly identify 10 out of 10.  

It would be great to hear what simple tests you would devise for homoeopathists to take to show the fundamental science behind their ‘medicine’ is sound. Alternatively I would like to hear from homoeopathists as to what evidence would convince them that homeopathy doesn’t work?

Those of you that know me will know that I am a season ticket holder at Southend United. Many years ago while watching another crap team come to Southend United score a completely undeserved goal (I maybe bias here) in the first ten minutes and then spend the subsequent 90 minutes employing an array of timewasting and frustrating tactics, my friends and I came up with ‘Classic Tactics by Crap Football Teams’ essentially a list of tactics designed to see a game out when you don’t have the ability to beat the opposition legitimately.

The author of ‘Classic Tactics by Crap Football Teams’ is now delighted to bring you ‘Classic Tactics by Crap Peddlers (AKA Woo Merchants)’ a list of tactics employed by those peddling alternative medicine, creationism, astrology and other woo designed to lure the laymen and frustrate the sceptics;

1.      Attack the Source of the Information not the Information Itself.

This is more commonly known as an Ad Hominim attack. Rather than engage the opposition in an informed and measured debate the Crap Peddler will undermine the opposition with insults seemingly blind to the fact that even if these insults were true they still wouldn’t undermine the legitimacy of the counterargument only the individual making that argument. A current favourite insult being employed by homeopathic peddlers has been to call their detractors Nazis. Which brings me nicely on to our next tactic;

2.      Attempt to associate the legitimate scientific theory or research with an immoral ideology.

This is perhaps a reworking of our first tactic; failing to insult the individual Crap Peddlers will try to associate the information with something morally abhorrent. This is a favourite tactic of creationists who often try to associate Darwin’s theory of Evolution with Nazism. Once again even if this were true it would not undermine the theory itself. I’m sure Hitler believed in gravity it doesn’t suddenly make Newton wrong.

3.      I can’t hear you!

Better known as, not engaging with the evidence. When confronted with insurmountable evidence to the contrary a crap peddler clearly is left with no other choice other than to simply ignore that evidence and pretend it doesn’t exist. Perhaps the best example of this is the creationist’s argument that there are no transitional fossils despite the colossal amount of fossils sitting in museum exhibits around the world just waiting to be looked at.

4.      Barefaced Lying

You would think that this tactic was a bad one since someone is bound to find out that you are lying and call you up on it. Fortunately this is not a problem for your average Crap Peddler since they can easy revert to Tactic 3 should this situation arise.

5.      Won’t somebody please think of the children!

A slightly confusing title, but this is essentially the art of appealing to people’s emotions. An emotional anecdote can work wonders for the Crap Peddler when faced with cold hard facts. This particular tactic has been exploited brilliantly by Jenny McCarthy who has used her son’s plight as the foundation of her campaign against vaccines.

6.      The whole world is against us.

Do you remember when you were a kid and you knew you were in the wrong, things weren’t going your way and there was nothing you could do about it other than to say ‘It’s not fair’ to which the inevitable reply ‘Life’s not fair’ would come hurtling back at you. Well Crap Peddlers have their own version of ‘It’s not Fair’ where they will claim that there is some sort of conspiracy, that they are in the minority or that they are being silenced. Well they can dress it up how they like but every time I hear a Crap Peddler banging on about conspiracy I can’t help picture my Mum saying ‘Life’s not fair’, and it isn’t you know, she was right.

7.      Get ‘em young.

It is very easy to indoctrinate an individual into your particular brand of crap if that individual doesn’t have the information to make an informed decision for themselves. In order to increase their chances of not meeting stiff opposition in the face of blatant lies and crummy science Crap Peddlers will often target children before they have a chance to develop the critical thinking tools that will fend off such nonsense.

8.      Pluck those Cherries.

Perhaps misleadingly placed after Tactic 7. I am of course not talking about that sort of cherry picking. No I am referring to the art of highlighting the results that reflect positively on your particular brand of woo and ignoring the negative results. Although this is an amalgamation of Tactics 3 and 4 it is so specific that I felt it warranted a number of its own.  

9.      I know I am but so are you.

If you accuse the opposition of doing something that you yourself are doing it makes it very difficult for them to then accuse you of doing that very thing. You with me? For example if a Crap Peddler was to call you close minded it then makes it very difficult for you to accuse them of the very same thing lest you be reduced to the debating skills of a 5 year old.

10.  Smoking prevents the plague don’t you know? 

Crap Peddlers love to use the age of a treatment and its cultural origins as support of its efficacy. This can also spill over to the Crap Peddler themselves when they claim they have studied a treatment for years and have spent time in the far east. Imagine an ancient Chinese remedy being prepared by a ‘wise’ old sage, preferably with a long white wispy beard. Surely you can’t go wrong! Well turns out you can go wrong.

11.  Sue the bastards

Yeah this is kind of Tactic 1 but it takes a certain amount of gall to face criticism and instead of confronting the criticism running to the courts in hope that you will scare the opposition into withdrawing. I can only assume this tactic was dreamed up by a poker player as the ultimate bluff. Crap Peddlers be warned though, people like Simon Singh are setting precedent by calling the bluff so to speak and steps are being taken towards libel reform to make this tactic ill advised in the future.

Warning

Despite being aware of these rules this still does not put you in a position to argue with a Crap Peddler successfully. Remember the main advantage a Crap Peddler has over you is that they don’t care if they are talking bollocks. All the Crap Peddler needs to do is construct enough doubt in a neutral observer to make the observer think they are on a level pegging and the Crap Peddler has won. This is often why experienced sceptics like Richard Dawkins will avoid debates with creationists; engaging them gives them a platform from which to present their woo and if you attack a specific claim and win they make something else up you can’t refute instantly without due research. This does not mean Crap Peddlers should remain unchallenged just do so with caution. You have been warned.

This is not a comprehensive list but I think most arguments/tactics employed by Crap Peddlers can fit into one or more of these categories. Remember this is not a list of the arguments themselves as that would be endless, rather the general form of debating tactics that Crap Peddlers take. For example the irreducible complexity argument given by creationists uses Tactics 3 and 4. If you think there are any clear omissions or mistakes please add them in the comments and I will amend the list accordingly.

I’m very excited about this week’s Friday Comic and that’s because it’s Tree Lobsters.

American televangelist and all round cretinous tosser Pat Robinson came under fire last week when he blamed a pact with the devil for the earthquake in Haiti.

This prompted Lily Coyle of Minneapolis to send this fantastic letter to the Star Tribune on behalf of the devil in response to Pat’s claims.

Dear Pat Robertson,

I know that you know that all press is good press, so I appreciate the shout-out. And you make God look like a big mean bully who kicks people when they are down, so I’m all over that action. But when you say that Haiti has made a pact with me, it is totally humiliating. I may be evil incarnate, but I’m no welcher.

The way you put it, making a deal with me leaves folks desperate and impoverished. Sure, in the afterlife, but when I strike bargains with people, they first get something here on earth — glamour, beauty, talent, wealth, fame, glory, a golden fiddle. Those Haitians have nothing, and I mean nothing. And that was before the earthquake. Haven’t you seen “Crossroads”? Or “Damn Yankees”?

If I had a thing going with Haiti, there’d be lots of banks, skyscrapers, SUVs, exclusive night clubs, Botox — that kind of thing. An 80 percent poverty rate is so not my style. Nothing against it — I’m just saying: Not how I roll.

You’re doing great work, Pat, and I don’t want to clip your wings — just, come on, you’re making me look bad. And not the good kind of bad. Keep blaming God. That’s working. But leave me out of it, please. Or we may need to renegotiate your own contract.

Best, Satan

I understand that Lily Coyle has now terminated her employment with the devil after a disagreement over her pension plan.

Liberty are a fantastic organisation that campaign to protect human rights and freedoms. It is in the shadow of their victory over blanket stop-and- search powers in the Court of Human Rights that I hesitantly trip into a rant over a recent opinion piece written by Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti for The Times.

In this piece Shami argues for the freedom of people to wear the symbols of their faith and be free from discrimination or prosecution. She cites the example of Nadia Eweida an employee of BA who was asked not to wear her cross on show. It should be noted that this was an issue of dress code for BA and that Ms Eweida felt was religious discrimination. Whilst I don’t want to get bogged down in the details of this particular story I do want to take issue with the comment piece by Shami Chakrabarti.

First of all the Nadia Eweida story broke in 2006; if this is the only example that Shami Chakrabarti can find to make her point that people across the country are being discriminated against for wearing religious iconography, then to say she is making a mountain out of a molehill would be making a molehill out of a divot. That aside she begins by taking issue with BA seeking legal advice;

“BA instructed an international law firm strenuously to resist her claim of religious discrimination.”

I think I can see what picture she is trying to paint here. That of poor Ms Eweida against big evil British Airways, but I think that is unfair. BA asked a law firm to protect their interests when the prospect of a costly and potentially publically damming discrimination trial was on the horizon, it’s hard to know what course of action Shami would have recommended instead.

“It may be true that religion has caused much war and prejudice but it has also inspired much art, music and compassion. And it is also true that scientists and engineers have produced some of the greatest advances in human history, but also some of the stuff of nightmares.”

I have no idea what her point is here to the issue at hand? Is she trying to imply that it is OK for religion to cause war and prejudice so long as we get some nice paintings at the end of it? Because that sounds like a fairly shitty pay off to me. Also, I’m not so sure that religion does inspire compassion. People are naturally compassionate, Dawkins has covered this topic extensively in the past, a Christian who shows compassion will always associate their compassion with their religion because that’s how they think. But I don’t believe for one minute that if our hypothetical person lost their faith they would suddenly lose all compassion for others as well. Any belief structure that discriminates against another damming them to an eternal firey grave because their beliefs differ does not come across as something that inspires compassion to me, but maybe I’m just being fastidious. The following sentence on scientists is thrown in there as a kind of up-yours to science. However what Shami fails to acknowledge is that while science may well be responsible for creating the ‘stuff of nightmares’ it is the people that put that stuff to use in the name of whatever cause they happen to be fighting for that we should really be damning, not the science itself. I can’t remember the last time anyone killed anyone in the name of scientific endeavour. Perhaps if they did we all might start treating scientists with the reverence normally only reserved for the, well, reverent. Of course all this is irrelevant to the issue but far be it from us to stand in the way of a perfectly good opportunity to have a dig at scientists and engineers. Afterall it was them that figured out how to get those massive planes in the air in the first place so really they must shoulder some of the blame.

Finally she uses an incredibly bias poll to support her argument that BA were in the wrong and her organisation should really be doing something about it. “86 per cent of British Christians polled disagreed with BA’s treatment of Ms Eweida”, I mean come on! 86% of British Christians side with the Christian, why not poll her family and friends as well see what they think? The only interesting thing about that poll is that it is a wonder the percentage was as low as 86%. Perhaps the other 14% realise that as religious discrimination cases go this is a pretty weak one. She wasn’t told she couldn’t be a Christian and work for BA, she wasn’t told she couldn’t wear her cross at all just asked not to display it. This had nothing to do with the fact that it was a cross but because it went against BA’s dress code that “personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn – but underneath the uniform” something that was perfectly practical for her to do. She cries religious discrimination and all of a sudden BA are in the shit for reacting a little heavy handily to an employee that broke the rules. Why should Ms Eweida and her cross be treated any differently to someone that wants to wear a pentagram, or a sharks tooth, or their birth stone? They shouldn’t, and to hide behind religious discrimination and human rights is a joke and one that Shami Chakrabarti and Liberty have fallen hook line and sinker for.

It was about time I featured atheistcartoons.com on the Friday Comic. I think they can be a bit hit and miss but this comic posted back in December is a classic.

Do we really need to explain the difference between weather and climate and national and global? It would appear that we do since the press seem determined to use this current bout of cold weather to fuel the fire of climate change denial. The Daily Express are probably the worst culprit with their front page headline directly using the current snow as evidence against global warming, never mind the fact that North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia are all experiencing temperatures above the norm. To take the recent weather of a country that’s land mass makes up less than 0.2% of the world’s total and use that as evidence against global climate change is so ridiculous it is a wonder anyone could read that and take it seriously. If they had bothered to do an ounce of research they might have taken the time to go to the Met Office website which has a nice little article explaining the cold snap and stating;

“The current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn’t tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time.”

Do you see that Daily Express? The current cold weather doesn’t tell us anything about climate change stupid.

The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Telegraphhave been quick to jump on the anti global warming bandwagon albeit a little more underhandedly. Both featured articles about research by Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany. His research, according to the Mail, challenges the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs. Although the Telegraph’s report was slightly better I especially liked the way they referred to our current temperatures as ‘Arctic’ (with a capital ‘a’) you know that place where average winter temperatures can be as low as ?40 °C? Not that I would want to accuse them of exaggerating. The problem with these articles is that the Leibniz Institute research doesn’t challenge global warming at all, and despite clarifications from the scientists, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, they went ahead and misrepresented it anyway. I’m picturing a petulant child right now with his fingers in his ears going ‘NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you’.  

It’s been a busy week for The Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Telegraphwho, not content with being on the global warming denial bandwagon, decided to jump on the anti health and safety bandwagon as well when they accused the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) of issuing warnings to businesses not to grit public paths because this could lead to legal action. Was this more evidence of a heath and safety conscious society gone mad? Was it balls. In actual fact the IOSH position on gritting public areas is almost exactly the opposite. The Sunday Telegraph did take the time to contact the IOSH before they printed the article who were only happy to provide a statement from their Policy & Technical Director Richard Jones but this was ignored. ‘NAH NAH NAH I can’t hear you’.  

What is the point in contacting people to clarify a story if all you are going to do is completely ignore them? When are there going to be measures in place to stop this sort of behaviour? At the moment newspapers can just carry on fitting stories to suit their political agenda regardless of whether the evidence or story supports it or not. Without proper punishments and legislation the media is free to essentially make shit up and get away with it time and time again. Its a disgrace and the public deserve better from their news outlets regardless of their political bias.

Kat Akingbade of Science of Scams will be talking at London Skeptics in the Pub on Wednesday so here’s one of their fantastic videos. To see more go to the Science of Scams website. I love the Science of Scams videos; we all like to think that we can’t be fooled, (especially sceptics!) but these videos show just how easy it is to create believable paranormal effects and fool people. Remember “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.

It’s been a while since we had one of these so what better way to celebrate the return of the Friday comic than some sound advice from the doctor, this is Daisy Owl.