tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51860120063777463282024-03-08T08:32:52.864-08:00SkeptiDadSapere AudeJeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-6967526494723751822013-04-06T11:21:00.003-07:002013-04-06T11:22:23.115-07:00Why Say No To GMO?<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Over the weekend I noticed the “Say
No To GMO” protest at Parkinson (A rec center here that holds the off season farmers market). I was a little confused. Did the
people protesting understand that almost everything we eat has been
genetically modified. Or that our species has been genetically
modifying the food we grow for thousands of years. Granted today we
can modify the plants in a lab, instead of selective pollinating out
in the field. But does that make it bad?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Science says no. Everything bio-tech
product that comes out of a lab is strictly regulated, and rigorously
tested before it is allowed to come to market. The benefits of being
able to target certain genes in a lab, makes the process faster and
safer then selective pollinating in the field. There are great things
being done in the biotechnology field, we can now make plants more
pest resistant, which means less pesticide. Higher yield crops means
more food on less space. They can now even enhance the vitamin
content of the food to make it even more healthy. Why, after all of
that, would you still want to say no to GMO?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
The truth is, the argument against
biotechnology is one of ignorance and fear. Like most new technology
on the market people are afraid of it. Some don't really understand
it. And ever prevalent is the naturalistic logical fallacy, the
belief that everything natural is good and anything done in a lab is
bad for you. While I can give you numerous examples of instances
where this is not true, I will try to keep this letter short.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, instead of saying no to GMO, say
yes to science education and scientific literacy.</div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-78097113946721828512013-03-27T21:30:00.001-07:002013-03-27T21:30:55.370-07:00The Creationist Challenge<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So it came to my attention, that a
creationist from California was offering $10,000 to anyone who could
prove evolution over creationism in a court of law. At first this
seemed like it would have been an easy $10,000, but when you start to
look at the wording, things become a little more dodgy. If at this
point any of my readers are wondering what a creationist is, it is
someone who believes that everything was created by a supernatural
power, just as we see it today, and that evolution isn't true.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Let's start with whether or not there
is even a debate here. Spoiler, there isn't. Evolution is so well
proven, and empirically verified that there is no longer a question
as to whether or not it happened. It did. For over 150 years, it's
been tested more than any other scientific theory we have. There is
thousands of lines of investigation, with hundreds of thousands of
pieces of evidence.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
So, if evolution is considered a fact,
why does it seem like no one is taking him up on this offer. Well,
lets look at his offer, this is from the new source that first
reported it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #444444; color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">A </span><span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">California</span> <span style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">creationist
is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a
judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book
of Genesis.</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
Seems straightforward enough, but when you look closer at the claim,
science would have to disprove creation in order to win. The way this
is set up is a win win for him.</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
So, why can't science disprove this. Science can't disprove anything,
that's not how it works. We can prove something does exist, or that
something did happen, however we can never prove that something does
not exist, or that something never happened. Go ahead and try it,
prove to me that hobbits don't exist, and that Frodo never carried
the one ring.</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
I'm going to make a prediction here. I think that most of those who
can prove evolution, won't take the bait. There is a problem with
this. If no one steps up to take this on, the creationists will use
this as “evidence” that science is wrong. However if someone does
take this up, and loses, which they will because this is how it is
set up, then again the creationists will use this as more “evidence”
of their position. Either way, there are those who will use this as
an excuse to try and push the teaching of their wrong and outdated
beliefs on our children.</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
Science is science, and it is not decided in a court, or debate, or
by popular opinion. Science is based on empirical evidence.
Scientific theories are facts.</div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border: none; line-height: 0.19in; margin-bottom: 0in; padding: 0in;">
You can read the full story of the challenge <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/25/creationist-trial-bible-genesis-evolution" target="_blank">here</a></div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-27727745658179658592013-03-16T10:35:00.001-07:002013-03-16T10:35:23.450-07:00Delayed Cord Clamping <br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What is delayed cord clamping? It is
the process in which after the baby is born, the doctor does not
clamp the cord right away. I will explore what the evidence says, and
what some of the common misconceptions are. I will link to all of the
sources of information at the end of this post.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
According to a Cochran Review on the
studies done on DCC (delayed cord clamping) there is a slight
advantage to waiting up to two minutes to clamp the cord. The slight
advantage is an increase in iron in the baby. There is also a slight
risk of <a href="http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/hrnewborn/hyperb.html" target="_blank">hyperbilirubinemia</a> or <a href="http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/976319-overview" target="_blank">polycythemia</a> with DCC. The current
recommendation is still under debate, however there is some consensus
on clamping between 30 seconds and 2 minutes. I will note that these
guidelines are for uncomplicated pregnancies. Complications during
pregnancy could facilitate early cord clamping. There is no negative
effect on the baby with immediate cord clamping.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of the myths I saw a lot of while
researching this is that you should wait until the cord stops
pulsating. The idea being that as long as the cord is pulsating, it's
transferring nutrients and blood to the baby. This is not supported
by the evidence. A pulsating cord does not mean anything is being
transferred. Another myth is that all of the blood in the placenta
belongs to the baby. This is also a wrong assumption, as some of the
blood would have been needed to support the placenta as well. The
idea that you should wait to clamp the cord because it's the natural
way turns up a lot. This is of course the natural logical fallacy.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As always, follow the recommendation of
your doctor. Because immediate cord clamping has no negative effect,
and the effects of delayed cord clamping are minimal, delayed cord
clamping should only be done under uncomplicated circumstances.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Reference.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[6]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[7]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[8]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[9]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[10]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[11]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[12]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[13]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[14]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[15]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[16]"></a><a href="" name=".reactRoot[26].[1][2][1]{comment10152579658820534_38868410}.0.[1].0.[1].0.[0].[0][2].0.[3].0.[17]"></a>
<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043880" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22043880</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16782490" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16782490</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867842" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11867842</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15510946" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15510946</a><br /><a href="http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=206143" target="_blank">http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=206143</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17307809" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17307809</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374818">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17374818</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://academicobgyn.com/2009/12/03/delayed-cord-clamping-should-be-standard-practice-in-obstetrics/">http://academicobgyn.com/2009/12/03/delayed-cord-clamping-should-be-standard-practice-in-obstetrics/</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003248/early-cord-clamping-versus-delayed-cord-clamping-or-cord-milking-for-preterm-babies">http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD003248/early-cord-clamping-versus-delayed-cord-clamping-or-cord-milking-for-preterm-babies</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Obstetric%20Practice/Timing%20of%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Clamping%20After%20Birth.aspx">http://www.acog.org/Resources%20And%20Publications/Committee%20Opinions/Committee%20on%20Obstetric%20Practice/Timing%20of%20Umbilical%20Cord%20Clamping%20After%20Birth.aspx</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bmj-paper-benefits-delayed-cord-blood-c">http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/statement/rcog-statement-bmj-paper-benefits-delayed-cord-blood-c</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-86885841682996957212013-03-07T19:34:00.001-08:002013-03-07T19:34:58.056-08:00Learning Online For Free The advent of the Internet and digital media has done wonderful things for the human race. I feel one of the most important aspects of this is bringing about free access to education. As some of you know, you can learn how to do just about anything from YouTube. From changing a tire, to changing a light fixture, to hanging a door, to even skinning a deer. Really, as a matter of fact, when I picked up hunting, that's how I learned to do it. But if we want to talk about learning at a more academic level, then that has become widely available to anyone with Internet access. So lets look at a few sites that are offering this free education.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.academicearth.org/" target="_blank"> Academic Earth</a> provides a library of university lectures, on a range of subjects. These are always available, and you can watch them at your leisure. <a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm" target="_blank">MIT Open Courseware</a> is much the same as Academic Earth, but focus' just on courses offered by MIT. Some of the courses have questions to help you learn as you watch the videos. These sites are great if you're just interested in auditing a class or two. The learning is unstructured, so you can watch lectures in any order. With the exception of a few courses on the MIT Open Courseware site, there are no practice questions to help you along, no tests, and no additional help. The MIT site however does offer some assignments for some of their courses, ungraded if you do them of course.<br />
<br />
If you want learning that is a little more structured there is <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/" target="_blank">Khan Academy</a>. This site functions like a tutor. There are over 3000 videos, with helpful quizzes in between. This site is great for additional help learning a subject, or to learn a new subject.<br />
<br />
So, this seems like a good start to learning stuff online, but what if we want a more structured experience, with people to help us, and grades to track our progress. Well, there are two sites that have done a great job in doing this, including offering certificates of completion for those who finish the courses.<br />
<br />
This first of these sites is <a href="https://www.coursera.org/" target="_blank">Coursera</a>. This site offers a wide selection of courses from many different universities. These courses are structured. There is a series of lectures for the week, with in video questions to help you understanding. Then there is homework assignments, which are graded and due at the end of every week. Participants that make a certain grade will usually be issued certificates at the end of the course. Here is the <a href="https://www.coursera.org/" target="_blank">Coursera</a> about:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We are a social entrepreneurship company that partners with the top universities in the world to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free. We envision a future where the top universities are educating not only thousands of students, but millions. Our technology enables the best professors to teach tens or hundreds of thousands of students.<br />Through this, we hope to give everyone access to the world-class education that has so far been available only to a select few. We want to empower people with education that will improve their lives, the lives of their families, and the communities they live in.</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The other site for this is <a href="https://www.edx.org/" target="_blank">EdX</a>. This was a collaboration between Harvard and MIT. This site is much the same as Coursera, but a bit more structured. They have a lot less courses than Coursera as well, but they are adding more all the time. Here is what they say about themselves.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #3c3c3c;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, Cambria, Times New Roman, Times, serif;">EdX
is a not-for-profit enterprise of its founding partners Harvard
University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that
features learning designed specifically for interactive study via the
web. Based on a long history of collaboration and their shared
educational missions, the founders are creating a new online-learning
experience with online courses that reflect their disciplinary
breadth. Along with offering online courses, the institutions will
use edX to research how students learn and how technology can
transform learning–both on-campus and worldwide. Anant Agarwal,
former Director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence
Laboratory, serves as the first president of edX. EdX's goals combine
the desire to reach out to students of all ages, means, and nations,
and to deliver these teachings from a faculty who reflect the
diversity of its audience. EdX is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts
and is governed by MIT and Harvard.</span></span></blockquote>
</blockquote>
So in conclusion there is no reason for any of us to not learn anything we want to. I'm using these sites to the best of my abilities, and am learning quite a bit. Coursera seems to be offering some very good courses for those wishing to improve their critical thinking skills. I feel privileged to live in a world now, where university level education is available to anyone willing to put in the time and effort.<br />
<br />Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-14760570323538174242013-03-05T18:50:00.000-08:002013-03-05T18:50:00.112-08:00Our Institutes of Science Need to Be More Vigilant Recently in the news there was the Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation asked anti vaccine mouthpiece Jenny McCarthy to leas an all day fitness event. After a campaign by skeptics and Science Advocacy groups they decided to drop her from the bill and go with another fitness guru.<br />
<br />
Now it seems that Simon Fraser University is renting space to the self proclaimed Vaccine Resistance Movement for their vaccine summit. This is billed as an open discussion about vaccines. In reality it will be a full day of fear mongering, misinformation, and lies. The results are in, vaccines are safe and effective. There is not a single government health authority in the modernized countries, or a single university medical program that has refuted these findings. In fact if we look to science, there is no evidence at all that vaccines do more harm than good.<br />
<br />
Now before I go on a rant about how vaccines save lives, and how we're in the middle of an outbreak of vaccine preventable diseases due to the drop in vaccination rates of children. That's not what I want to focus on here. Nor am I stating that any of these people or organizations should be silenced. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how dangerous and anti science they are.<br />
<br />
My issue is when an organization that is supposed to represent science, or medicine lends a platform to these cranks. When a university lends a space for such an anti science movement such as this, they lend them credibility they don't deserve. There is not two sides to this issue, this is not an issue that's up for debate. Sixty plus years of scientific and medical research, all overwhelmingly coming to the same conclusion is a fact we can trust.<br />
<br />
CFI Canada has written <a href="http://www.cficanada.ca/news/letter_to_simon_fraser_university_concerning_vaccine_summit_vancouver_2013_" target="_blank">this open letter</a> to Simon Fraser University asking them to reconsider this action. The Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University has also issued <a href="http://www.fhs.sfu.ca/news/featured-article/fhs-disavows-any-support-or-affiliation-with" target="_blank">this notice </a>disavowing any link with this group.<br />
<br />
I think a little more vigilance from our science based institutes is in order. The anti vaccine movement is becoming more vocal, and in turn the vaccination rates have been dropping. Right now across North America we are experiencing the worst outbreak in 70 years of whooping cough. This is attributed directly to the lower rates of children being vaccinated. Just because anyone should be allowed to spout unscientific nonsense and fear mongering, doesn't mean our scientific organizations needs to give them a platform.Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-4561221366651120692013-03-01T06:49:00.001-08:002013-03-01T06:49:45.845-08:00Vatican Newsletter<h5 class="uiStreamMessage userContentWrapper" data-ft="{"type":1,"tn":"K"}">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="messageBody" data-ft="{"type":3}"><span class="userContent">by David Crawford<br /> <br />
<i>It’s certainly great to have all of you back in town again for some
full-contact conclaving. The dart boards have been dusted off, the
arm-wrestling tables are ready to break any ties, and for those who
haven’t been working out, we also have some big souvenir coins for
flipping.<br /> <br /> Some of you have never been to the Vatican before, so we have put together this informative newsletter. <br /> <br />
Special thanks to my co-editor Cardinal Rasta from Jamaica for the
help, and also for the awesome new incense burning in the office here.
Wow. <br /> <br /> • We’re asking all visiting Cardinals to please not bait
the Swiss Guards. They know they have funny pants. You should hear what
they say about your outfits.<br /> <br /> • The duty roster for answering
the Mel Gibson, Dan Brown and Linda Blair private hot lines is posted in
the locker room. Just make stuff up when they call. Oh, and remember;
only the Pope is allowed to update Bono’s Facebook page. <br /> <br /> • If
you wear your skullcap to the deli down the street they’ll think you’re
Jewish and give you 10% off. Try the knishes. Oy, they’re fabulous.<br /> <br />
• Correction: An announcement in the last issue, about an upcoming
ballet recital by Sister Mary Ignetowski from Warsaw, was incorrect. The
‘pole dancing event’, which caused a stampede to the gym and a sudden
shortage of five dollar bills at the canteen, should have read ‘A Pole,
Dancing’ event. We regret the error. <br /> <br /> • The Holy Father’s soap
on a rope is missing from the downstairs shower. Would whoever has it
please hang it up again and no questions will be asked. <br /> <br /> •
Cardinal Ouellette of Canada asks his holy brothers to please stop
saying “Amen, eh” when passing him in the halls. The joke was old about a
day after he got here, he reports. Amusingly, he still says “Sorry”
every time you bump into him.<br /> <br /> • Our first Pay-per-view bill has
come in, guys, and as a result the Holy Father has once again changed
the passcode on the remote. Would whoever hacks the code please Tweet
it to the rest of us. Also, Vinny in accounting says there’s no way
those women are amateurs.<br /> <br /> • Just a reminder that referring to a turkey’s neck as the ‘Pope’s Nose’ is still considered offensive.<br /> <br />
• Please use restraint and good taste when vandalizing Cardinals
campaign posters. Black Sharpies only, and no cartoons or thought
balloons please.<br /> <br /> • The recreation committee needs volunteers to
move the pews in St Peter’s for the weekend ball hockey tournament. See
Father Flying Phil for details. And hey - watch the cross-checking…
(that’s a little newsletter humour there).<br /> <br /> • In cafeteria news, ‘Eggs Me’ is now off the menu. <br /> <br />
• For those of you going on the skeet shooting excursion this weekend, a
supply of devices used to keep water out of your shotgun barrel has
been obtained. These clever rubber things come rolled up in a small
package, and are available in the gym changing room. Simply roll one of
these over the end of your weapon to prevent any unfortunate incidents
out on the trap range.<br /> <br /> • The apparition recently seen in the
cafeteria, which some wag referred to jokingly as the ‘Flying Spaghetti
Monster,’ has been investigated by our top scientists. They report there
is no solid evidence to prove the existence of such a spirit, they
think whoever reported it had swamp gas, and do not question their
authority. Case closed.</i></span></span></span></span></h5>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-65285622917474540232013-02-28T20:16:00.000-08:002013-02-28T20:16:22.357-08:00The Unreliability of Testimony
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>Believe nothing of what you hear</i></div>
<i>
</i><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>and only half of what you see.</i></div>
<i>
</i><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i> -Edgar Allen Poe</i></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Should we believe what we hear? Why is
it so easy for us to believe what people have to say? We like gossip,
we like hearing stories, it makes us feel good. The problem is that
the human mind is so easily fooled. Now, I don't claim to be above
being fooled, I will admit that I have been fooled many times, and
fallen prey to the shortcuts of our mind. I believe this is one of
the most important aspects to learn in being able to make good
decisions based on reliable evidence. Because of the many different
ways our mind can be fooled, we should never take eyewitness
testimony, or anecdotal evidence as truth, or reality. I'm not saying
that everyone is a liar, but that we are easily fooled into believing
something that is false.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Think back to elementary school. I'm
sure many of us remember playing the telephone game, where the
teacher would whisper a phrase into the fist persons ear, and then it
had to be passed on down the line. If you never played this game, I
encourage you to look it up and try it. As I'm sure was the case, the
last person to have this phrase passed to them would then say it out
loud, and I'm sure it was never the same as the original. This is a
great example of how information gets corrupted being passed on
orally, or through eyewitness testimony.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There are many ways we can be fooled
into thinking something false. Our being prone to believe in
anecdotal information is one of them. If anyone has facebook, this is
a great example, if you're anything like me, I see weekly someone
sharing some information that is false, but they believe to be true.
There is a few websites dedicated to debunking a lot of these
Internet “urban myths”. So lets talk about all the different ways
our brains can be fooled, and why we shouldn't believe what we hear.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lets start with confirmation bias. This
happens when we want to believe one way, we tend to find information
that confirms our beliefs, and discredit information that disagrees
with our beliefs. This is a well documented phenomenon. We are all
prone to confirmation bias, even myself. This is something we should
all work to be aware of. So if you're talking to someone who believes
a certain way, chances are they have looked and trusted all the
information that agrees with the way they think, and won't tell you
any contradictory information.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lets talk about some logical fallacies.
These are ways our brains get tricked into thinking something sounds
logical, when really it isn't. I've posted a list of these in an
earlier post, but I will cover some more here.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Argument from ignorance. This is when
one goes from a statement of uncertainty to a statement of certainty.
For example, I don't know what those lights are in the sky, they must
be aliens from another planet. Or I don't know what that noise was in
the house, therefore it must be a ghost. You can see where the logic
is failing in this. You cannot go from an abject statement of
uncertainty, to an abject statement of certainty.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Argument from authority. Just because
someone claims they are an expert, or has initials after their name,
doesn't always make them right. One of the times we see this is when
a PhD in one field, makes statements or assertions about a field they
know little about. Just because someone has a PhD in physics, it
doesn't make them an expert in biology.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Argument from popular belief. Just
because a lot of people believe it's true, it must be true. It
doesn't matter how many people believe in something, it doesn't make
it true. Also it doesn't matter how few people believe in something,
it doesn't make it false. The Earth will continue to travel around
the Sun, regardless of how many people believe it's true or not.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
These are common arguments that can
lead to false beliefs. They can trick people into believing something
that might not be true. We have had an entire culture of UFOs spring
up because of people making an argument from ignorance. Now with the
advent of everyone having a cell phone with a camera and the
Internet, these sightings are being recorded and quickly identified.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I'm going to go quickly into the
placebo effect, as I covered it in my last post. People can think
something makes them better, when the reality is that it did nothing.
The placebo effect can work both ways though. If someone thinks
something is bad for them, they will get sick from it. This is
referred to as the “nocebo” effect. The nocebo effect is one of
the common arguments against electromagnetic radiation, and people
getting sick from it.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I've
discussed this before as well. It states that a correlation between
two variables implies causation. There are a lot of people, always
falling for this in many situations. We have evolved great pattern
recognition ability. However this great ability sometimes sees
patterns and connections that aren't there.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This brings us to patterning. Because
we are so good at seeing patterns, we tend to see patterns in true
randomness. Many conspiracy theories come from us noticing patterns
in random events. Or connecting things that have no relation. Most
people have trouble recognizing a random pattern as random. The
reason for this is that randomness naturally has clumping. We tend to
see this clumping as a pattern.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In conclusion, there are lots of ways
we can be fooled into believing something false. This doesn't make us
dumb, or liars. This technique of using anecdotal evidence to get you to believe something is used extensively by the people peddling pseudoscience and pyramid scams. Beware, if someone is trying to convince you of something and all they're presenting you is success stories, chances are they are scamming you. I know we've all seen this sales pitch before, don't fall for it, demand real evidence for the efficacy of a product or system. Before we believe what someone tells us, we should
look at the evidence backing this up. Now, we can get into a
philosophical discussion of what needs evidence, and when we should
trust someone at their word, but we won't.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Remember, </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<i>extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence – Carl Sagan</i></div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-32526954876609703892013-02-20T21:26:00.000-08:002013-02-20T21:26:33.223-08:00Alternative Medicine vs. Modern Medicine
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Introduction</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is a question I'm sure comes up
often. What is the best way to treat an illness? We hear a lot about
how science and modern medicine have made astounding breakthroughs in
curing potentially fatal disease. We also hear about all these great
things about Alternative Medicine, how it's “All natural”, how
it's “Ancient Chinese Medicine”, or how it's so much safer than
modern medicine. With so much information around on both of these it
might seem like an enormous task to figure what will work the best.
Hopefully in this article I can simplify things and hopefully make
the choice seem a little bit easier.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The Placebo Effect</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
While I'm sure most of the people
reading this have heard of the placebo effect, this is an important
issue to understand in making choices for treatment. The placebo
effect was discovered in the 18<sup>th</sup> century and is
essentially a pill or procedure that does nothing, but tricks your
mind into relieving the symptoms of a disease or illness. The most
common form of a placebo used is a sugar pill, which is just a pill
made of sugar. While modern science still doesn't understand a lot
about how it works, they have discovered a lot about the effect.
Research shows that 2 sugar pills are more effective than 1, and that
an injection is more effective than a pill. The more invasive a
procedure the more of a placebo effect it has. There are other
things, such as blue sugar pills work better as a sleeping pill
placebo than red sugar pills. Or a doctor in a lab coat gives out
more effective sugar pills than a doctor in jeans and a T-shirt.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So why is understanding the placebo
effect important in making medical decisions? It's because sometimes,
a treatment can seem like it's working even though all it's doing is
creating this placebo effect.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Modern Medicine</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Modern Medicine, or western medicine as
it's sometimes called is more properly known as Evidence Based
Medicine. This is the medicine your doctor practices. Any drug your
doctor prescribes, or recommends has been tested against a placebo
and shown to work better. A lot of procedures and treatments come
from a good understanding of human physiology. All of the treatments
and procedures are based on scientifically sound evidence. A doctor
should be able to tell you the benefits and risks of a particular
treatment and what options are available.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So how is medicine tested? A good test
to see if a particular treatment is better than a placebo begins with
a double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled trial. So what does
all that mean? In a properly conducted trial, both the patients and
the doctors are blinded, that means that the doctors giving out the
medication, and the patients receiving the medication have no idea
whether it's real or a placebo. The patients should be randomized
using a computer algorithm or some other blinded method. A researcher
selecting patients for the groups could unconsciously bias the trail
in one direction. So during the trial, no one knows who is getting a
placebo, and who is getting real medication, this should even extend
to the statisticians doing the final tally on the numbers. Only at
the end of the trial, after all the results are in should the
blinding be taken off, and which group is which be revealed. In a
well conducted trial, with lots of participants, we get a really
good idea of the effectiveness of a treatment.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Alternative Medicine</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If modern medicine is evidence based,
where does that leave alternative medicine? Well, alternative
medicine is either unproven, or dis proven So either it hasn't been
tested, or is difficult to test properly, or it has been tested and
shown to work no better than a placebo. There are a lot of
alternative therapies out there that have been tested and shown no
better results than a placebo. I realize at this point my view of
alternative medicine is looking pretty grim, as I am making the claim
that none of it has passed a test and shown to be effective. So what
happened to the alternative medicine that was tested and shown to
work? Modern medicine, being evidence based, adopts any treatment
shown to work, and as it's adopted, it becomes mainstream, and no
longer “Alternative”.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I'm not going to get into a description
of every alternative medicine out there. That might be a topic for a
later post. However be wary of any medical claims that rely on an
abundance of anecdotal evidence. If I haven't made it clear yet,
anecdotal evidence is completely worthless. How can you be sure that
the anecdotal evidence in these claims, is simply not the placebo
effect? The other effect that dis proven medicine relies on is called
“Return to the mean”. This effect is best shown by your bodies
natural ability to heal itself. How do you know if the anecdotal
claims for these alternative therapies are not just the person
getting better on their own? Truth is, we can't know, that is why we
have such controlled and rigorous testing, to control for variables
like this.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of the other claims of alternative
medicine followers I hear quite often is “Big Pharma doesn't want
you to know, because it's not profitable”. This claim is simply
wrong. “Big Pharma” is mandated and regulated to prove that their
drugs work better than a placebo, in order to bring them to market.
The other part of this is that the alternative medicine industry is
now making over 100 billion dollars a year. I don't know about you,
but last time I checked, that seemed like a decent profit. Please
don't take this paragraph as my endorsement of the pharmaceutical
companies, they are definitely guilty of some shady practices for
profit. Dr. Ben Goldacre is working hard to bring this shady
practices to light and stop them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
While there are several topics I didn't
discuss in this article like the ethics of selling a placebo, or
particular alternative treatments, I hope there was enough
information to help you make a better decision. My thoughts are this,
why would you spend your hard earned money on a treatment that is
either dis proven or unproven when we have a good system of evidence
based medicine available. For further reading if you're interested I
recommend <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/Trick-Treatment-Undeniable-Alternative-Medicine/dp/0393337782" target="_blank">Trick or Treatment by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh</a> and also
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X" target="_blank">Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-82147402311246000272013-02-16T12:51:00.000-08:002013-02-16T12:51:41.804-08:00Amber Teething Necklace
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>What is it</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The amber teething necklace is claimed
to help infants with the pain of teething. Now the first thing I
noticed about this, is that you're putting a string of choking
hazards around your child's neck. To me, this doesn't seem like a
safe alternative. As a parent I can sympathize with wanting to
relieve the pain in your children, or even to have a few moments of
quiet. Like most alternative medicine, I was not able to find a lot
of science, or trials testing the efficacy of this, well actually
none at all. As usual I found a lot of anecdotal evidence and post
hoc fallacies. That being said, that alone does not mean it's
entirely bunk.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="color: red;"><b>WARNING: THIS PRODUCT POSES A CHOKING RISK. THIS ALSO POSES A STRANGULATION RISK WHEN WORN AROUND THE NECK </b></span></div>
<span style="color: red;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Let's explore how this is said to
work. The best explanation I can find is that the amber releases
succinic acid and that is absorbed into the skin. There are a few
other more wild explanations like it's bio-interactive, or that it
aligns chakras, or that it has homeopathic qualities. So lets ignore
the explanations that we know aren't possible and look at the one
plausible explanation. There are three assumptions being made in the
claims for this product. All of these assumptions need to be true for
this product to work the way it is described.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<ol><ol><ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Amber releases succinic acid</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Succinic acid is an effective
pain reliever</div>
</li>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Succinic acid can be absorbed
through the skin</div>
</li>
</ol>
</ol>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Does it work</b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Lets look at assumption 1. Amber does
contain succinic acid, however getting it out of the amber requires a
lot of processing. Amber is fossilized tree resin, that has been
compressed, heated and cooled over hundreds of thousands to millions
of years. The idea that it can release anything on contact with skin,
after it has been pushed and polished for so long does not seem
logical to me. The process of getting succinic acid out of the amber
involves crushing it into powder and then distilling it. Looking at
all the information available, while amber does contain succinic acid,
I don't believe it's going to give it up just from skin contact.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
On to assumption 2. Succinic acid is
used as an additive in the food on industry to control the acidity of
products. There are reports that it has been used in the past (before
modern testing) as a topical pain reliever. There is no evidence
today that I could find that shows it is an effective pain reliever.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Now assumption 3. Succinic acid, once
extracted from the amber, is a solid salt like substance. While it
could be possible to absorb it through the skin, this substance is
known as a skin irritant. It is not considered a dangerous substance.
When we look at it being a skin irritant, it would seem likely that
if assumption 1 was correct we would see a skin irritation where the
beads were worn.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<b>
</b><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
After looking at all the evidence and
claims for this product, I would highly recommend not using it. This
product poses a serious choking and strangulation hazard to infants.
There is also no evidence to support that this relieves the pain in
any way. As there has been no scientific trials conducted on this,
most likely due to the high risk and no plausible method of it
working, I can not say 100% that this will not work. All logical and
reasonable examination of this points to this as being ineffective.</div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-83021532203975976402013-02-12T15:31:00.000-08:002013-02-12T15:31:20.455-08:00Standards of Evidence
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Introduction</span></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> So this post might be a
little long winded, but I want to establish a foundation of what we
consider rational evidence. This will do allow us to be honest in our
critique of certain issues. At any time anyone can refer back to this
post if we allow ourselves to be biased by non ration evidence.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Why having a standard
of evidence is important in making decisions</span></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> There is good evidence,
bad evidence, and useless evidence. By having a standard on which to
base what is good, and why, we can sort through all the bad evidence
and get ourselves a truer picture of reality. We can only make
decisions based on how good the evidence presented to us is. I don't
know about any of the readers, but I myself want to be able to make
the best possible decisions for both myself, and my family. Having a
higher standard of what you consider evidence leads to better
decisions and allows yourself to get a more realistic picture of the
world around you. In this article I hope to explain how I came by
this standard, and some of the “bad” evidence you should watch
out for.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Standards in science </span></b>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Modern science has done a
great job in realizing how flawed and biased our perception of
reality can be. The scientific method is a way in which hypothesis'
can be tested, and a true result be obtained in spite of these biases
and flaws. You don't need to be a scientist to use the scientific
method, just a little bit of rational thought behind how you come to
a conclusion is needed. I will get into how our perception of reality
is flawed later in this article. The other thing modern science has
given us is called the “peer review”. In this process, scientists
publish their test, their methodology, and their findings in a
journal that is read by other scientists in their field. This way
they can be critqued by their peers who have no bias or stake in the
results of a certain experiment or trial. </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Understanding how peer
review works is an important part of knowing if a result is worth
accepting. A lot of articles get published and get media attention,
but then once the peer review process finds flaws with the study or
trial, often it's not covered again by the media. In this way, we
need to be careful that the studies we're looking at for our evidence
are not only published, but have also been thoroughly reviewed. A
study that is published, but then peer review has shown many flaws,
is not a study or trial I would accept as evidence.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></b></div>
<b>
</b><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Why anecdotal evidence
is useless</span></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Anecdotal evidence, or
eyewitness testimony, in matters of finding truth, or reality is not
really evidence at all. There are many ways our brains can be tricked
into believing in something that isn't true. Let me give you an
example. I'm sure most of us have been to see a magic show, or seen
one on T.V. Did any of us believe that David Copperfield actually
made the statue of liberty disappear? Or that Chris Angel actually
levitated? Or that any magician actually sawed a woman in half? Of
course we don't believe they actually did this, we understand that
they are simply taking advantage of the shortcuts in our brain that
have been hardwired by evolution.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> I have great respect for
magicians, they freely admit what they do is an illusion. However
there are those out there that essentially do the same thing, and try
to convince us it's real. Psychics, Alternative medicine
practitioners, and Ghost Hunters are just a few of those that take
advantage of similar shortcuts in our br<span style="font-size: small;">ai</span>ns, but unlike magicians,
they try to convince us they're powers are real.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> In this respect, if you
tell me that you went to a psychic, and they were so good that they
knew everything about you, so their powers must be real, should I
believe you? Would you believe me if I told you David Copperfield
really made the statue of liberty disappear? Of course you wouldn't,
you know it's just a trick. In this same way, we can't take the
eyewitness account of anyone, unless they can produce some more
reliable evidence for their claim. There is two really good videos
explaining this process more fully <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSJElZwEI8o" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> and
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16E-4avtddE" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b><span style="font-size: small;">The logical fallacy</span></b></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> The logical fallacy is
when a statement follows what seems to be a logical order, but in
reality is not logical at all. A brief explanation of how logic works
is: if p, then q, p therefore q. A logical fallacy would be<span style="font-size: small;">: if p, then q, q therefore p. While this follows the same <span style="font-size: small;">form, it is not logic. </span></span>I won't get into any more, but
instead I'll take a look at some of the more common logical fallacies
that are used.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <u>Post hoc ergo proper hoc</u>.
While I don't know the exact translation, this fallacy is one in
which it's believed A happened, then B happened, therefore A caused
B. While there is some contributing casue for B, unless it can be
shown that A caused B, we can't assume that it is the case. An
example of this in real life is the vaccines ca<span style="font-size: small;">us</span>e autism scare.
Children aren't able to be diagnosed with autism until they are about
three years old, around the same time the normal course of
vaccinations are done. This link has been thoroughly debunked. This
logical fallacy is especially prevalent in the alternative medicine
industry. I drink this magic potion, then I got better, it must be
the magic potion that made me better. I guess it's not possible for
your bodies natural process to make you feel better.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <u>The natural fallacy</u>. In
this fallacy it's believed that everything produced in a lab is bad
for you, and anything that come from nature is good for you. Not
everything in nature is good for you, in fact, if you ever take a
walk through the wilderness, most of the plants that you see will
kill you if you eat them. Now I'm not saying everything produced in a
lab is good for you, but some things can be better for you than their
natural counterpart. Take asprin for example, the natural for of it
found in the willow tree, while effective, is also toxic. A little
tweaking in the lab and we come out with a safe version, that is
still very effective.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <u>The ad hominem.</u> This
fallacy is when the person making a claim, or presenting evidence is
attacked. It doesn't matter what the person, or company has done, or
what they do, all that matters is the quality of the evidence they're
presenting. An example of this is that most people tend to disbel<span style="font-size: small;">ie</span>ve
any report Monsanto puts out, simply because they have gotten the
reputation for being an evil, greedy corporation. Simply being evil
and greedy doesn't mean you can't do good science.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> There are plenty of other
logical fallacies. While I don't have the space to discuss all of
them here, there is a list of them <a href="http://www.logicalfallacies.info/" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-size: small;">.</span> </span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Disproving established
science</b> </span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> So this last section I'll
look at what established sc<span style="font-size: small;">ie</span>nce is. There are certain things in
science that are taken as true, such as the laws of thermodynamics,
the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, mathematics, and a
few others. While there is always new things being discovered in
these fields, most of the basics are pretty much established. So, if
there is a claim that violates any of these laws, or is in
contradiction to any of these established sciences, and you want me
to believe you, there is one simple way. Publish your findings in a
peer review journal, get through the peer review process, then claim
your Nobel prize. At that time I will happily believe your claim.</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Hopefully this wasn't too
long. Understanding evidence we can make better decisions for us and
our children. After all, don't we all want to do whats best.</span></div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5186012006377746328.post-37514599749854046432013-02-09T18:41:00.000-08:002013-02-09T18:48:06.301-08:00Introduction<span style="background-color: #45818e;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> I
currently work as a carpenter. I love working with my hands to
create. I have a family, I enjoy spending time with them. I enjoy
learning new things. I'm your average guy. You don't need a degree to
learn how to make good decisions based on sound, solid evidence. All it <span style="font-size: small;">takes is a little time to learn how to spot bad arguments<span style="font-size: small;">, or useless evidence.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span>Critical
thinking is becoming one of the most important skills to learn. It's
going to be even more important to be able to pass on those skills to
the next generation. We're living in a time where we have
unprecedented access to information. Good and bad, we can find all
kinds of information on the Internet. Critical thinking gives you the
skills to separate the good information, facts based on evidence and
logic, from the nonsense and magical beliefs so prevalent on the Web.
One good example is the <a href="http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/" target="_blank">flat earth society</a>, if
there wasn't so many pictures, and other evidence to refute this,
would they be making a good argument? </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Critical
thinking is not difficult to learn. All you need is a few simple
skills. Hopefully through this blog, and by demonstrating how some of
these arguments fall down under closer scrutiny, we can make the best
decisions for our children. <span style="background-color: #134f5c;"><span></span></span></span></span>
</div>
Jeff Quesnelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11874037536085348811noreply@blogger.com0