Archives for category: skeptics
Newer Entries »

And yet, planes fly

November 22, 2012 //

Jet Trails over Canberra-1

And yet, planes fly.

This is a phrase that often comes to mind when people question the value and utility of science, or diminish its importance in the world today.

It cuts through the objections: that science can be biased, or imperfect, or financially driven, or chaotic, or fraudulent, or philosophically unsound, or just one idea among many.

Sometimes, these criticisms are valid. There are many instances where science has been hampered by fraudulent and unethical behaviour, where scientists have taken appalling short cuts and or adjusted data because it didn’t fit preconceived notions, where bullying and a dogmatic over-reliance on unsound theories has hampered progress. You could write a book on it.

And yet, planes fly.

Big ones too. Gigantic 300 tonne planes, travelling at 900 kilometres per hour, at 40,000 feet above the ground. Right now, a few of them are routinely ploughing their way through the stratosphere en route to various destinations across the planet.

All this would not have been possible if it were not for the efforts of generations of scientists and engineers. These people sought to understand and exploit the physical properties of this world, using rational thought, experimentation and argument to allow us to leave the ground and do something that would have been unimaginable to countless generations.

When I say “yet planes fly”, I am only tipping a snowflake on the tip of an enormous iceberg. And yet, computers work. Washing machines work. Mobile phones work. We’ve put men on the Moon. Cured and treated cancers. Eradicated ancient diseases. Increased food supply. People now live longer. Babies are born that otherwise wouldn’t be. Most children survive to adulthood. Mothers can better plan their families and their futures. We can peer back to the beginnings of time and examine the most fundamental components of the Universe. All this, and much more, because of science. All this, despite the problems inherent within the scientific process.

It may seem trivial to point to aeroplanes and these other examples and point them out as astonishing products of the scientific process. Even the most ardent pseudoscience devotee is likely to accept that science has yielded huge discoveries and benefits. The point, however, is that, faults and all, it remains the most successful mode of understanding the world and dealing with problems that humans have ever concocted. It has succeeded where mysticism, homeopathy, religion and new age doctrines have not. Indeed, they seem to occupy the ever-decreasing areas where significant progress is still limited.

Such an outlook could be dismissed as scientism: a view that science, on its own, can explain anything and solve any problem. This may not be true, or even possible; but science still remains the most powerful intellectual tool in our arsenal. When it comes to the pressing issues of the day, from global warming and climate change, disease management and genetic disorders, sanitation and overpopulation, I would prefer to have a bunch of scientists and engineers looking at these challenges than anyone else.

So when I see airplanes in the sky, it shows that, limited and all though are species are, and no matter how faulty our processes of discovery, we have nevertheless learned a lot about how the universe works and how we bring those insights to bear on real-life challenges. The problems of the coming century will be very different to those of the last one. They are likely to need the efforts of our best technical brains to tackle and solve. It’s time more people started to wake up to this.

Tags , , , ,
Categories science, skeptics

On science and skepticism

February 19, 2012 //

As organiser of a local skeptics* club in Cork, it should come as no surprise that scepticism is a huge area of interest for me. There are a lot of issues in the public sphere that deserve critical examination. There is a need to promote scientific thinking in the public domain and there is a paramount need to counter poorly evidenced thinking, particularly around health and mental health issues. Finally, I seem drawn to weird and outrageous stuff, and where better to examine these than in a skeptics’ club?

There are, however, a number of considerations I need to make. First of all, it is impossible to know everything. No matter if I was an expert in some things (some if!), there would still be lots of areas I wouldn’t know well at all. Even the most ardent and knowledgable skeptics depend on what the experts in fields outside their area of speciality have to say. These experts can, of course, be all wrong, but it is a good assumption that they will, for the most part, be far less wrong than most non-experts.

Another consideration is that most of us skeptics may not have access to the full range of literature that professional scientists might have access to. Most scientific papers are only available to institutions, who pay big money for the privilege. The rest of us might be able to buy scientific papers online, but just a few purchases will be sufficient to clean out our bank accounts. Then there is the issue of interpreting them and reading them within the full context of literature on this subject. Just like swallows in summer, one paper is unlikely to provide a complete perspective and may in some cases be completely unrepresentative, so you need to do your homework. For us non-experts, this might even be a good thing. The field of pseudo-science is littered with people misreading scientific papers to lend support to their own crank ideas.

And, yes, it is true that science does not have all the answers. Science, at any time, only represents the best understanding of issues at that time. It can take years, perhaps even centuries, to arrive at insights that make sense of difficult problems. It is driven by humans, and the frontiers of science are often characterised by squabbles, ideological fixations and methodological shortcuts. It’s a messy process.

Ultimately it comes down to this: we base our perspectives from those we consider worthy of giving us an insight into matters we ourselves are not experts on.  So what are we to make of it all? Should we reject science and scientific consensuses as mere opinions, to pick and choose from as we see fit? Knowing that we don’t have access to primary data, should we pack up and do something else more productive with our time?

Certainly, this would be the right thing to do if science was always getting it hopelessly wrong, no matter what the question was. But that’s not quite the case. It has limitations, sure, but it also has great strengths. Science is responsible for some of the biggest insights and greatest achievements our species has ever witnessed. Because of science, things work: whether it be airliners, stents or traffic management systems. Its power lies in is its ability to bolster opinion with reference to measurements of reality; to guard itself against biases; to focus on margins of error rather than absolutism; and to self-correct, even disposing of longstanding cherished theories if sufficiently strong evidence comes to light that contradicts them. This gives science a practical advantage over just about any other discipline that purports to explain reality.

Science works in terms of error bars. It does not promise absolute truth, but it helps to set limits on where that truth might be. The more research involved, the more validation and testing there has been, the narrower those error bars become. Science can therefore be more effective in telling us what is implausible, as it is about what actually makes sense. So, even though science can sometimes move in new and very interesting directions, long debunked ideas tend to remain debunked. Progress, in science, is characterised by a narrowing of error bars, not a widening.

Being a skeptic means that we accept, provisionally, the scientific consensus view, while remaining mindful that this view might shift with new data. We can, of course, be sceptical about the scientific consensus too, but doing so means that we should have grounds for this viewpoint. Not being sufficiently well grounded in these fields puts us at risk of getting the evidence, and underlying theories, all wrong.

Siding with the scientific consensus is an assumption most skeptics tend to make. I tend to think it’s a good assumption.

* Note: there is quite a bit of ambiguity this side of the water about the use of the “k” in skepticism. I tend to use it when referring to the skeptical movement, otherwise the c is probably better English. Probably…

Tags , , ,
Categories science, skeptics

My First Friday talk – Hoaxes and Hysteria in Astronomy

February 5, 2012 //

I had the privilege of speaking at the First Friday’s at the Castle in CIT Blackrock Castle this weekend. My talk was “Hoaxes and Hysteria in Astronomy”, where I took a sceptical look at Astrology, UFO’s and the Moon Landing “Hoax” conspiracy theory.

I first spoke about astrology. To understand why astrology is wrong, you need to understand how it originated, and how astronomical discoveries since the 1500’s have completely overturned the basis of the belief system. It also gave me the opportunity to present Phil Plait’s frequently posted diagram:

Then I gave a potted history of UFO’s and our culture’s fascination with all things extraterrestrial. Part of it featured Orson Welles’ infamous radio broadcast that panicked half of America in 1938. Here is the first piece of the radio show. Even now, over 70 years later, it still works as a monumental piece of broadcasting.

Orson Welles later described why he did it:

 

While a great many people claim to have seen UFO’s, there has never been any hard evidence provided. UFO reports have been plagued by problems of mistaken identity, delusion and hoaxes. One of the best hoaxes was crop circles: initiated by two drinking buddies in the south of England.

I then spoke about the widespread perception that the moon landings of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were a hoax and that NASA staged a cover-up of monumental proportions. There have been many rebuttals, most comprehensively done by the Mythbusters team.

Personally, I love Michell and Webb’s take on it.

At the end of the talk, I got around to my Baloney Detector Kit:

That last one, the “lone mavericks” suffering for their ideas, is particularly true. There have been far, far more wrong-headed lone mavericks” in history than the tiny number of people who have eventually been proven right.

Finally, if you have managed to read through to the end, here are some useful links should you wish to know more.

  1. BadAstronomy.com : Phil Plait waxes lyrical about his wonderment of the universe, while regularly debunking the widespread misinformation.
  2. Snopes.com : If you hear a strange tale or you get an email that sounds fishy, check this website out. It will give you some food for thought.
  3. Skepdic.com : The Skeptic’s Dictionary is a tremendous resource for people who want to understand the scientific view of modern delusions and weirdness.
  4. Randi.org : The James Randi Educational Foundation has been fighting baloney for years. There are plenty of resources there for budding sceptics.
  5. Skeptoid.com : Brian Dunning has created a comprehensive list of ten-minute podcasts debunking all sorts of strange ideas. You name it, it’s probably there.

We run regular “Skeptics in the Castle” meetings in Blackrock Castle, where experts are invited to talk about the reality behind modern misconceptions, fads and strange beliefs. Check out our website corkskeptics.org. We are also on Facebook and Twitter.

Tags , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories skeptics

Austin Darragh’s strange interview

November 22, 2011 //

Professor Austin Darragh spoke to Marian Finucane on the radio last Saturday. Professor Darragh, now in his eighties, is one of the most esteemed members of the medical profession in Ireland. His prolific career, spanning 6 decades, is a case study in productivity and enterprise. He has been a pioneer in both the academic world and the business world. More recently, he has devoted significant time to understanding crippling issues such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS), and Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD).

In a wide ranging interview, he made two claims that had me scratching my head.

He is concerned about immunisation, particularly in children. He believes that a lot more work needs to be done to understand the linkage between the whooping cough vaccine and allergic syndromes such as asthma and eczema.

He believes that antibiotics are a principal cause of CFS. The thinking goes like this: our cells contain mitochondria, which are bacterial organisms. Mitochondria generate energy that feed the cells. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and therefore, while killing “bad” bacteria, they will kill mitochondria too. Therefore the cells do not get the energy they need. Therefore people feel fatigued. Therefore, CFS.

I am not an expert in medicine, and I have not done any research into these issues, but to my mind these are pretty serious statements. If they are completely factual, backed up by proper scientific research, then these are hugely important medical breakthroughs. The CFS claim is truly revolutionary, as I have not heard anything like this from mainstream scientific commentators: in fact, I have frequently heard the opposite.

If the claims are not backed up by proper evidence, then what he is saying is enormously irresponsible. Both areas: childhood immunisation and CFS, are fraught with stratospheric levels of emotion and an almost zealous disregard for the truth. The science behind the claims of the most vocal of the advocates is either non-existent or flatly contradictory. Children throughout the developed world have fallen ill and died as a result of the questioning of immunisation. Fear mongering about the use of antibiotics, on the basis that you might get CFS, could have equally serious consequences. Making public factual claims about things that are merely hypotheses, serve as a huge distraction and may divert badly needed resources and time from more promising areas of research.

On the claim that CFS is called by the death of mitochondria, then how come we all don’t have CFS after a course of antibiotics? How come chronic users of antibiotics don’t all have CFS? How come you can safely administer antibiotics to small children and the elderly? What is the research? What alternative views exist and what research has been conducted into alternative claims? None of this was explored in the interview, but it would be interesting to know more.

I encourage you to listen to the radio programme and to draw your own conclusions. The relevant part of the interview begins at the 26:16 minute mark.

Tags , , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories science, skeptics
Newer Entries »