Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

D'Souza comes so close... he acknowledges that pure agnosticism is untenable, and that nobody has access to any unique knowledge. But then he forgets that it's religion that makes extraordinary claims.

The problem with Malcolm Gladwell

Steven Pinker nails it:

The themes of the collection are a good way to characterize Gladwell himself: a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning and who occasionally blunders into spectacular failures.
...
An eclectic essayist is necessarily a dilettante, which is not in itself a bad thing. But Gladwell frequently holds forth about statistics and psychology, and his lack of technical grounding in these subjects can be jarring. He provides misleading definitions of “homology,” “saggital plane” and “power law” and quotes an expert speaking about an “igon value” (that’s eigenvalue, a basic concept in linear algebra). In the spirit of Gladwell, who likes to give portentous names to his aperçus, I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.
...
Readers have much to learn from Gladwell the journalist and essayist. But when it comes to Gladwell the social scientist, they should watch out for those igon values.

Homeopathy in the AJM

Great editorial piece by Ernst and Baum in the American Journal of Medicine this week on the lunacy of homeopathy:

We are often accused of tilting at windmills; and hey, what's wrong with offering placebos for the worried well with self-limiting conditions? Well firstly, it is considered unethical for modern medical practitioners to sink to this kind of deception that denies the patient his or her autonomy. Secondly, by opening the door to irrational medicine alongside evidence-based medicine, we are poisoning the minds of the public. Finally, if we don't put a brake on the increasing self-confidence of the homeopathic establishment, they will cease to limit their attention to self-limiting or nonspecific maladies.

I particularly like that they raise the ethical issue of placebo treatment. A treatment that is knowingly given as placebo, as they say, denies the patient his or her autonomy, and relies on "tricks" or evasions on the part of the physician. It may indeed have a beneficial health effect, but the moral ramifications are too great to countenance.

NCCAM's Projects

One of the difficulties that I find arguing against the existence of NCCAM is that the vast majority of the projects they fund are... so damn sensible. In more than one debate I've had people retort using a list of deserving, interesting projects as an argument for NCCAM's continued worth. Here is the link to the projects NCCAM funded in FY 2008.

The proper answer, of course, is that all of the good projects can find better homes in their appropriate science-based NIH centers. A center devoted to CAM indicates that, all else being equal, a study is worth funding simply because it deals with CAM. What else could that mean except that those same studies have a lower standard for biological plausibility or even methodological rigor?

Of course, neither of those things have ever been high on the list for those using prayer or water to treat disease...

The Past Year in Bisphenol A

Background

Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed in today’s Times about bisphenol A (BPA). BPA, for those not already aware, has been in the news the past couple of years, and has ignited a firestorm over its potential health effects. Namely, some studies have indicated that it acts as an endocrine disruptor in humans, and may be linked to heart disease, diabetes, and gender-related disorders in young children.

The Republican Health Care Bill

How it compares in that respect with the Democratic proposal is not yet clear. But a lot of the Republicans’ savings on premiums come from reduced coverage. Pay less and get less.

The good news is that this bill has no chance of passing. The bad news is that unless the White House and Congressional Democrats push back with the hard facts, the Republicans could use it to spread false hope of a “cheaper” alternative to scuttle real health care reform.

(NYT)

HuffPo Watch

HuffPo, you're so devious.

Today's lunacy tells the story of Charles Darwin and his flirtations with homeopathy. Because, of course, correlation proves causation, and Smart=Scientist=Darwin=Homeopathy=Effective!

The story by Dana Ullman ("Expert in Homeopathic Medicine") has it all: a scientist fearing persecution; purely anecdotal evidence; an appeal to rationality (but only when it supports the lunacy); and, amazingly, attributing The Origin of Species itself to the life-saving water Darwin received.

It's perversely ironic (or is it ironically perverse?) that Ullman uses the man who revolutionized biology and, by extension, modern medicine, to justify a medieval approach to health.

Newton spent more of his time on alchemy than he did on physics. Therefore, I am now an alchemist.

I Read Books!

Denialism, by Michael Specter.

...according to the data [Chris Mooney] cited and other data as well—[Americans] are not all that anti-scientific. At least they say they are not all that anti-scientific. I think many people even mean it. But then what happens? Nearly half the adults in this country say they are opposed to vaccinating their children against the H1N1 influenza virus. No vaccine is perfect—and every choice we make entails risk of some kind. But so far there have been more than 10 million doses of the vaccine administered and, according to the CDC, no reports of serious adverse reactions. Americans clearly like the idea of scientists; increasingly, though, they reject their advice. That is what I was trying to suggest in the book by writing, "We expect miracles, but have little faith in those capable of producing them."

(Slate)

One Nation, Under God...

Apparently a Home Depot in Florida fired a man for wearing a "One nation, under God, indivisible" button. He had been wearing the button for a year, but the firing was precipitated by his reading a bible during his lunch break.

I tend to side with the (former) employee in this case. The phrase is in common usage, and there's a pretty similar phrase on all US currency. Would he have been fired for wearing a button saying "In God we trust," while customers regularly fork over coins with the same phrase?

Convo on Faith & Reason

Part two of my convo on Faith and Reason with Jim at the Moral Science Club. His comments are here. My initial post to him is here.

Jim -

Thanks for the great response. I think three lines of thought was too ambitious. So I'll focus on the first question, and if we run out we'll pick up the other two threads.

For me (and for most atheists, I'd venture) one of the stronger pieces of evidence for the non-existence of God has been the utter failure, in our eyes, of believers to offer evidence for a supernatural existence. You offered an argument from design as evidence, so I'll give you my take on this kind of argument.

Hate Crimes Legislation

Right about now Obama is slated to sit down and sign the new hate crimes bill, which adds gender and sexual orientation to the existing federal laws on hate crimes (which already includes race and religion).

I've always been a bit ambivalent on hate crimes legislation - not opposed, but not particularly enthused, either. But this post over at SciBlogs goes a long ways towards allaying my fears. He links to an article at the First Amendment Center by Charles Haynes:

But just to be certain that the legislation will not be misused, sponsors of the hate-crimes bill have added language to ensure that “nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech.” Further, “nothing in this Act shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual’s expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual’s membership in a group advocating of espousing such beliefs.”

The only speech affected by this bill is speech that has no constitutional protection now, such as speech that directs people to commit violence, in a manner likely to incite imminent lawless action. Bias-motivated acts of violence are the target of this legislation, not speech protected by the First Amendment.

Tough on the knees?

It's a simple question: Does long-distance running have long-term negative effects? I'm currently training for a late-January, early February marathon, and although I'm not really concerned about the negative long-term effects, it would be nice to know if I'll need new knees in 30 years...

Textbook Recommendation

I picked up Andrew Gelman and Jennifer Hill's Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, and I couldn't recommend it more. Probably the best mid-level description of why and how we model data I've read. It's ostensibly written for social scientists, but the methods are the same, and they offer plenty of biological/medical examples.

Dialog on Faith & Reason - Ryan

Part 1 of my dialog with Jim from the Moral Science Club.

Jim –

I’ve noticed, through reading and watching many debates between people of faith and skeptics, that the discussion often turns on definitions and misunderstandings. As Richard Feynman once said (about two ladies arguing across a narrow alley): they’re arguing from different premises.

With that in mind, I think it would help if we began by both answering some simple questions about our beliefs. I’ve suggested this before as an introduction to any debate, and here I’ll use a slightly abridged version.

1. Is the existence of 'God' an empirical question? Can we use observation and logic to come to an answer?
2. Are faith and science compatible?
3. Are the foundations of morality internal or external? In other words, is morality created by humans or does it exist apart?

Paranormal TV

Is it just me, or has there been an increase in the number of shows dedicated to ghosts, haunting, and the paranormal recently?