That same week (they must be conspiring) Jeff Wagg wrote “Skeptic, Be Not Proud” on JREF’s Swift blog. In it, he points out that skeptics have a right to be proud of the fact that they do their homework and get the facts right, but that we should “CROW IT FROM THE RAFTERS” when we ARE wrong, because surely we’re going to get things wrong from time to time, through our own mistakes or if we’re weighing in on a field that isn’t as well settled as we had thought.

From this, skeptics have two solid tools for combating pseudoscience and anti-science: striving for correctness and admitting when you are wrong. I’d like to add a third important tool to that toolkit, and that’s the ability to say, “I don’t know.”

Buuuuh??? via Stefan Baudy on Flickr

One of the growing pains of becoming a scientist is becoming comfortable with uncertainty. Scientists have to push the boundaries of what we know and test questionable hypotheses all the time. We work with theories and data and instruments that are on the cutting edge. We ask questions to which no one yet knows the answer. And I say that this is a growing pain since many of us came through an education system where there always was an answer, and we could get to it easily.

Being able to say, “I don’t know” is similarly important for teachers at all levels. Unlike with research, this may not be because no one knows, but because a teacher has such a wide range of topics to cover that he or she cannot know them all with incredible depth. At some point, one of your students is going to ask a question to which you do not know the answer, and you’re on the spot. And it’s quite alright to say, “Well, I don’t know, but I can look into it.”

In order to foster the credibility of public skeptics and the movement as a whole, I think it is important for skeptics to use both of these instances of uncertainty properly. We all have opinions and biases, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But when asked for “the skeptical viewpoint” of some topic or event, it’s okay to admit that you just don’t know. Maybe you aren’t familiar with the literature, or maybe it never came across your radar before. Either way, it’s okay, even advisable, to withhold judgment until you can find out where the data lie. That has to be distinguished from “we don’t know” or “no one knows” which is certainly a valid answer for some questions (i.e. What is dark energy?).

So, relax, fellow skeptics. As much as we info-junkies want to know everything, we cannot and will not be able to weigh in on every topic and controversy. Even if you are pretty well educated on some arena (say, UFOs), this doesn’t mean you are going to be able to solve every case (like when your friend describes some lights he saw in the sky… Explain that, skeptic!) on the spot. It’s just fine to say, you know, I’m not sure, let me look that up because that sounds interesting. But remember that just because YOU can’t explain something, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t someone out there who can.

So, were any of you on Twitter when I was asking specifics about goat noises? Why was I asking that? Well, find out at this week’s Amateur Scientist Podcast, where Brian brings the awesome, Christian brings the funny, and I just try and hang along for the ride. (If you didn’t already know, language NSFW, and sarcasm not safe for Sheldon Cooper.)

That’s all for now… I feel like there was something else, but I can’t remember now. But I also post random, fun, and cool things on Tumblr as well!

It is sickening and appalling that these people have made millions of dollars selling fake bomb detectors in a highly volatile area. People DIE when these dowsing rods ultimately fail. The news media is being far to generous is supposing that these detectors “may not work.” They are based on a pseudo-scientific concept that fails objective testing. James Randi, and later the JREF, has tested numerous dowsers under controlled conditions, and not one has succeeded better than chance. As can be expected, the JREF has responded to this story (twice). Rebecca over at Skepchick also weighs in on the harm of dowsing, including the following important investigative report on British TV:

I have little to add to the story except to say, score one for reason if these devices actually get recalled and if McCormick is properly punished. Seriously, these ATSC people have either completely bought into the myth of dowsing, or they are immoral jerks that have no place in decent society. And that’s being polite…

With “Climategate” and the Copenhagen Conference happening at the moment, global warming has been at the forefront of the news cycle and many people’s minds.  I noticed particularly in my occasional lurking about the JREF forums that AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) was being heavily discussed on the science boards.  I was a bit surprised to see that so many skeptics are also skeptical of AGW, although the science weighs pretty heavily in its favor.  Climate change is no doubt a huge and complex issue that can only be well understood by a studious few, but the same goes for many topics that skeptics tend to weigh in on, such as vaccinations, medicine, and evolution.  Of course, these are much broader and heavier topics than the paranormal claims that were investigated for decades by “traditional” organizations such as CSICOP (now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.)  Is it possible that as the skeptical movement grows and diversifies that we are collectively taking on bigger and bigger fish, or even overstepping our capabilities?

In order to tackle these big issues, skeptics need to ally themselves with the experts in these fields.  The Science-Based Medicine blog is a great example of real-life medical doctors weighing in on alternative medicine and anti-vaccination issues.  Many of the skeptical podcasts interview experts in a wide variety of fields in order to broaden our education.  However, trusting the experts runs counter to one common rallying call of skepticism, which is to “do the research yourself.”  For me, scientific research means actually sitting in the lab/office and doing the work that goes in the peer-reviewed journals, though skeptical research often means sifting through web or print sources for the information. In that latter case, you need to trust your sources.  Learning how the scientific method works, how science and scientists really work, and learning who to trust is actually an important part of skepticism, especially if we are to overcome a perfectly natural tendency to reject something that is complex and inconvenient.

So that brings me to the fooferah I mentioned in the first paragraph, that being James Randi’s post on the Swift blog about AGW.  Honestly, I don’t want to comment much on it and let his words, as well as a very thoughtful follow-up, speak for themselves.  Randi is darn good at what he does, and his commentary doesn’t change that.  Also, his opinions are not necessarily the official stance of the JREF or of the skeptical movement in general. That’s part of what is so great about skeptics, we won’t fall in line behind our heroes if they say something that we don’t agree with.  Also, our heroes are willing to self-correct when necessary, and that is invaluable.

So, I’m not going to get up in arms that the godfather of skepticism showed some skepticism of AGW, or at least admitted ignorance on the topic.  But it does make me want to work that much harder to make sure that the methods, as well as the results, of science are more broadly and deeply understood.  And I hope that skeptics will continue to reach out to the experts when tackling the “big fish” topics.

That being said, any actual climate change scientists want to meet for coffee? I know I have a lot to learn…

I’d like to briefly respond to the Hook news blog post by Lisa Provence titled “Pelt Michaels? Climategate includes swipe at Pat.”  It was incorrectly reported here that Dr. Phil Jones resigned from his post at the University of East Anglia, when he has only stepped aside from his post as director of the Climate Research Unit while there is an investigation into the matter. The information is available on the CRU website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/CRUphiljones

I would also caution in using the word “skeptic” when describing Pat Michaels and others climate change contrarians. A skeptic, as recently defined by John Rennie of Scientific American, is one who favors “dispassionate, rational inquiry, a respect for scientific thought and a well-grounded doubt in ghosts, astrology, creationism and homeopathy.” (http://bit.ly/8bg9Fx) It is proper to view climate change science with a healthy dose of skepticism, but the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming and comes from many different sources.  The so-called CRU “scandal” will not change the scientific results from sources all over the world, but instead highlight a serious problem with scientific communication to the public and public distrust of science.

Thank you!

In my H1N1 post, I mentioned the “backwards walking cheerleader.”  Via Skepchick, please read this entire post by Orac summing up the aftermath. In summary, Desiree Jennings was taken in by Generation Rescue, the anti-vaxx group that Jenny McCarthy associates with, and they “cured” her with some quack medicine.  Steven Novella also follows up on this story, and points out that the “miraculous cure” points strongly to the psychogenic hypothesis.  I’d really like to know how many people avoided vaccination thanks to this entire mess. I find it hard to laugh about this, but this guy does make it amusing.

Next, the sickening story of the dowsing rods being used by Iraqi security forces to search for bombs.  The James Randi Educational Foundation had asked the company to take the Million Dollar Challenge in October 2008 and had no response.  They have reposted the challenge, but I doubt there will be a response from the money-grubbing murderers unless there was a larger public response.

And finally, in news from my backyard, The Hook has a nice article about the car that flew through a guardrail and into a house… the house next door to me.  It is disturbing to me that new evidence shows that the cops did speed down Rugby Road at 85 miles per hour in pursuit of the stolen car (which at the time was just for a traffic violation.)  I don’t know where I stand on the debate though, since although there is clearly harm in such chases, are there benefits as the police department claims?  Loss of life is an awful thing, but do they save more lives in the process? That’s hard to prove, so maybe they should err on the side of caution. Two things that did strike me in the article:

However, Longo emphasized the dry pavement, the fact that UVA was out for the summer, and that the near-2:30am timing meant an absence of pedestrians.

Right, so because the undergrads are gone, the REST of us who live in Charlottesville year-round aren’t a concern?

Pointing to a black stripe on the pavement spanning the breadth of the roadway, Stone said the perpetrator probably never applied brakes— that he tried to negotiate a right turn at a speed that the laws of physics simply wouldn’t allow.

That right turn, if partially successful, would have brought the car into my living room and probably my bedroom. *shudder*

Alright, that was all depressing, so here’s a kitteh…

CC RWhitesell on Flickr

Happy Friday 13th, everybody.

Iraq Swears by Bomb Detector U.S. Sees as Useless

Colonel [Hal] Bidlack said, “When they say they are selling you something that will save your son or daughter on a patrol, they’ve crossed an insupportable line into moral depravity.”

Someone in that company, ATSC (UK) Ltd, must know that they are selling absolute garbage.  According to the article, they have made $85 MILLION lying to people in a way that endangers lives. That’s not just swindling, that’s murder. I almost wish there was a hell for people like that.

*kicks something*

In a related note, so glad that my buddy Will is home from his tour in Baghdad! See you this weekend, dude…

I’ve written previously about what it means for me to be a “skeptic” so I guess you could call that “skepticism 101.”  So say you are already on board with the whole idea. As Daniel Loxton asked, what do you do next?

One of the simplest things that you can do it just talk to your friends and family about what you think. Don’t be shy when you hear a friend claim that childhood vaccines cause autism.  Be genuinely curious when someone wants to tell you their ghost story.  It’s easy to rag on homeopathy or make fun of Jenny McCarthy when you know you are among like-minded people at skeptical blogs, forums, and meetings.  But eventually, the topics that you care about will come up in conversation with your buddies, and they don’t all read skeptical blogs all day long… I mean…. I’m working!

I’m not confrontational by nature. Grumpy at times, yes, but I’m pretty shy when it comes down to it. (Despite the volume, honestly!) And sure, we all see the productive arguments and unproductive shouting matches that occur online, but real life conversation doesn’t always go that way.  The first thing that you can do when someone brings up a topic that you are skeptical about, even passionate about, is listen.  I know, it’s hard, sometimes the first thing to come to mind is “WTF, dude, Oprah is a ditz!” Listen to your friend, discuss it like you would anything else.  Even on a topic that is as well scientifically validated as the safety of vaccines, just having the right answer doesn’t end the conversation.  The science is there, but so are the fears and emotions.  The science is there, but it hasn’t been properly communicated to everyone.  Most people just want to make up their own minds, and you may be able to plant the seed that leads them to the answer.

Most of the time, you really won’t know the answer. You didn’t personally see their UFO or ghost, you weren’t there when they “cured” themselves with homeopathy.  You probably can’t say for sure what they saw or felt or what really cured them.  But you do know a few things about the field, so share that. Plant the seed of doubt, let them investigate for themselves. Or help out! I’d love to see a really crazy UFO and try and figure out what it is.

There are times for impassioned, even asshole skepticism. But some of us just can’t pull it off well, and besides, having a beer with your colleagues is probably not that time. Chances are, they aren’t swindling people out of their money with fake cures. They are probably just as curious as you are. And who knows, you may grow your own skeptic! That said, I still cherish the online arguments, even as a spectator. It’s good training for your own critical thinking, and maybe it can help with some of those listening skills I mentioned above.

So, we use the word “skeptic” to describe ourselves, although technically the term is misleading. Skepticism is a process, there is no one way to be a “skeptic.” But we use the word and it’s there and sometimes your friends will ask, “Well what does that mean?”  For a while I wasn’t sure what to say. When I was at Dragon*Con at Skeptrack, I asked this question of a bunch of people there, but being scatterbrained as I am, I didn’t write it down or record anything. But a general picture began to emerge… a skeptic is someone who asks questions… a skeptic is a science advocate… a skeptic values critical thinking… a skeptic likes to do their own research and see the evidence.  We like to be seen as inquisitive, not curmudgeonly, though the latter is more likely where the stereotype lies.  We’re open-minded, not closed-minded, nor are we “conspiracy theorists”, though some of those have tried to co-opt the term.

I tend to hang out with science-types and with grad students. It’s just a function of where I am in my life. In my experience, they are more likely to respond to honest discussion and critical thought, not appeals to emotion. We live and breathe this stuff every day, poking holes in articles once a week in journal club, watching peer-reviewers poke holes in our own work.  (Aside: there is nothing “peer” about it when you are a wee student. It’s frakking terrifying!)  So maybe I have yet to delve into the world of the believers, but I think there’s plenty to do right here.

The flu isn’t a big deal. Numerically, statistically, it probably won’t be a big deal. 36,000 Americans die of the flu each year, so although it is a terrible sadness in each and every case, the threat to any one life is small.  In fact, as far as I can tell, I’ve never had a serious flu infection, so I never considered getting the vaccine. However, I work with young children once a week at the Virginia Discovery Museum, and occasionally I do outreach at local elementary schools.  Kids are friggin germ factories! I don’t want to get sick, I’m too busy to get sick.  And how terrible would I feel if somehow I knew I gave the flu to a child who then had complications?  Add to that, the H1N1 strain, which appears no more deadly than a regular flu overall, carries a greater risk of causing complications in normally healthy, low-risk people.  Actually, in this case, older people were exposed to a similar virus in 1957, so they are more likely to be resistant to H1N1 in the first place.  (The timeline is fascinating!) Okay so better safe than sorry, right?

The H1N1 vaccine is untested. There is one thing that is “untested” about it.  We don’t know for sure how effective it will be against the virus “in the wild.”  However, it is just as tested as every regular old seasonal vaccine, and the methods of production go back to the 1930s.  Every year, the genetic code of the flu that is targeted is all that changes. The fact that the World Health Organization knew from previous activity that H1N1 would be back to rear its ugly head is a good thing, since the vaccine only works if it targets the “popular” strains for that season. But to say it is unsafe because it is untested is to miss out on the fact that except for a bit of genetic material, it’s the same stuff we get every year.

But what about Guillain-Barre syndrome! Pandemic reports that spur mass vaccinations cause some to fear the rare but nasty side effects that cropped up in 1976 after mass vaccinations due to swine flu.  And like I said before, even if the numbers are small, better safe than sorry, right?  Guillain-Barre syndrome is an autoimmune disorder, meaning, the body’s defense system attacks itself.  There was a spike in GBS after the vaccine was administered in 1976, adding up to 1 new case of GBS per million people.  However, researchers have recently found that 40 to 70 people out of one million who get the flu develop GBS.  In fact, GBS is often triggered by some kind of infection.  So your chances of avoiding GBS increase with vaccination against the flu!

But… but… the backwards walking cheerleader! Okay, okay, so say we find that one in a million and put her on TV.  Except we’re not talking about GBS but dystonia.  This is a neurological condition, not an autoimmune disorder, and such a correlation has never been made before. But when looked at more closely, it’s not clear that the situation is dystonia at all, but rather a psychogenic condition.  When Tim first sent me the disturbing video, it was fairly easy to find this explanation, but Steve Novella handily updates us on the situation.

It’s all a government conspiracy*! I… don’t even have the patience for that.  Go put on your tinfoil hat and promise not to sneeze on me, okay?

So next time I hear some damn celebrity say that I should “educate myself” in a disdainful way because I am in favor of vaccinations, you can see that I already have. (I’m looking at you, Brent Spiner.) Sometimes it’s good to be part of the herd. Herd immunity, that is.

Good stuff:

New Scientist: Swine Flu Myths… Okay, the rest of the headline is a bit fear-mongering-y, but the information is good.

UVa H1N1 Information, or, damn dirty undergrads

Centers for Disease Control: Seasonal Influenza – be a part of the government conspiracy!

An Influenza Primer by pediatrician Joseph Albietz

* If you are a part of the vast global vaccine conspiracy, please see that I’ve done my part and send me my damn check already!

Okay, I’m kidding, I LOVE those cool Canadian skeptics, and they are coming together for a new borg… I mean, blog collective called Skeptic North.  It includes writing from very cool people such as Steve Thoms, Kimberly Hebert, Kennedy Goodkey, Desiree Schell, and lots more.  Also, check out the video section over on the right!  They even have an interview with Canada’s own Daniel Loxton, who is probably the nicest skeptic in the world.  Pretty cool stuff, so go get your parka add them to your feed reader.