CelestialFamily

1. Why did you invent so many ways for things to fly? Birds, insects and bats all have very different means of flying. Wouldn't it have been more intelligent to figure out which was the most efficient method and make everything fly the same way?

2. Why do dolphin fins, bat wings, and my hands all have very similar skeletal structure? What is so intelligent about making basically the same design perform three drastically different jobs?

3. As a man what purpose do my nipples serve? Don't get me wrong. I've kind of grown used to them. I'm just curious what you had planned for me to do with them since male mammals don't lactate.

4. Why is human reproduction so ridiculously inefficient? In her life time an average human female will produce several hundred eggs and only a very small percentage will ever be fertilized. Don't get me started with human males. Millions of sperm die for every one that wins the race.

5. Would it have hurt for humans to have those cool closable nostrils like seals and otters? I've never been a very good swimmer but if I had nostrils like that I could do a lot better.

6. And speaking of seals, if they're gonna spend so much time in the water, wouldn't it have made more sense for them to have blow-holes like whales and dolphins?

7. Why did I have to have my wisdom teeth pulled? They never came in all the way and even if they had, it's not like I have to chew on sticks to get to the soft stuff in the middle.

8. Why did you design my eyeball with the rods and cones behind all the blood vessels? Wouldn't it be more intelligent to put the blood vessels behind the photo-receptive cells?

9. What's the design advantage of making me breath and eat using the same tube? Was this just your way of giving Heimlich something to invent?

10. Why did you design so many thousands of fossils that look as if life was evolving? As an engineer when I design something I sign my work. You seem to have signed your work “Evolution”.

As I’ve stated before I have a pretty low tolerance for nonsense masquerading as science. Well last Thursday I hit DEFCON 4.
On the way home from work I stopped by the library to pick up a few books that I had on hold. I also noticed that Victoria had a few on the shelf too. So I picked them up. One of them was a DVD titled simply “Brain”. The cover looked like a National Geographic type program. It looked interesting. I even had a pleasant conversation the librarian about how interesting it looked. After dinner Victoria suggested that we sit down as a family and watch it.
It started off just fine. Slick computer graphics showed cutaways of the brain. They then moved over to interview scientists who were doing research on that particular part. The format kind of reminded me of the Universe series that we really love. So the format felt comfortable. The first half hour of the program was just fine. I take issue with a little bit of the ethics of using this type of brain science to improve combat forces but the science was well done. Then it took a turn off the deep end.
The last half hour was about ESP. They extensively interviewed the unremarkable cold-reader, John Edward and explored his so-called psychic ability as if it was a foregone conclusion. That’s when I really blew my top. The first step to investigating any phenomena is to see it the phenomena really exists. You don’t speculate as to how something works until you’ve determined that it works. But that is exactly what Dr. Dean Radin did. And they gave him the last ten minutes of the show to spout his nonsense.
I completely lost it during one scene. Radin had speculated that during one of his readings Edward’s heart rate would synchronize with his subjects. When he tested it and found that their heart rates did not synchronize he interpreted this clear defeat by claiming that he must be syncing with the person who had passed on. Unbelievable! His test failed completely and he interprets the results as a success. But not just any success, a success that is unfalsifiable. How in the world could we test to see if Edward is syncing with a person who has crossed over? Radin has obviously convinced himself that psychic phenomena is real and all of his results, positive or negative are interpreted to support that forgone conclusion. The kids were laughing at me by this point. I was not reserving any comment and they thought it was funny that I was yelling at the TV. “You do know that they can’t really hear you, don’t you, Dad?”
I was patiently waiting for the token skeptical response. They had it. It was about a 15 second shot of the cover of Skeptical Inquirer with overdubbing that said little more than some in the scientific community question Dr. Radin’s research. That's it? Something as controversial as psychics and you can only spare 15 seconds and one still graphic.
After the program was over Victoria noticed that the program was produced by the History channel. If there is a more inappropriately named TV channel I can’t think of it. A close second it ABC Family. What in the world does a program on ESP have to do with History? But this is the same station that has marathons on UFO stories, etc.
So afterword I took advantage of the teaching moment to talk to the kids about what psychics really do. I showed them a few youtube.com videos of psychics being tragically wrong and having no remorse about the consequences of their wild guesses. I then took out a deck of cards and showed them how I could steer the kids into picking the card I had chosen and making them think that they had chosen it. I then showed them a video of Dr. Richard Wiseman doing a psychic prediction and explained to them exactly how it works.
Hey I’d think it was really cool if ESP really existed. But it’ll take more than these con artists and their carefully selected rubes to prove it to me. Shame on the History channel for giving an once of credibility to these con artists and pretending that there is any scientific validity to ESP.

Over the past year I've read several books on this theme. All too often people will ignore data and evidence that does not support their preset conclusions and opinions. Whether it's political, ideological, religious or just hard to swallow people resist accepting evidence that will require them to actually change their behaviour or way of thinking.
In Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives author and science journalist Michael Specter covers several specific areas where people do exactly that and become denialists. Whether it's the benefits of vaccines, the safety of genetically modified foods or the nonsense behind the whole vitamin and alternative medicine craze, Specter shows that time and again we ignore the data and the real evidence and in its place accept unverified personal stories from friends and co-workers. Compelling as they may be these personal allegories are just that. And they are poor substitutes for evidence.
Specter points out that denialism is an infection that knows no political restrictions. Conservatives and liberals alike are just as prone to denying overwhelming data when it doesn't support their political ideology.
One of the side effects of reading several books on the same topic is that I have a hard time distinguishing what I learned from what book. Several of the specific cases and evidences cited in this book were also cited in other books I've read. Parts of the book dragged a little for me but only because it was a re-reading of things I've already covered extensively.
One of the topics that I was surprised that Specter didn't cover in this book was global warming. He responded when interviewed on The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast and asked why he didn't devote a chapter to it. He wanted to restrict the topics he covered to areas where more people might be sitting on the fence. He wanted to only address the issues where he hopped that he could actually change peoples' minds. He went on to state that the science behind anthropogenic climate change was so conclusive that he didn't expect his book to change the opinion of anyone who still believed that it was not a reality. Even some of the most hardened skeptics have changed there mind on this topic when they just weighed the massive amount of evidence supporting it.
Denialism is a serious problem. I fear that the marginalizing of science and evidence and the demonizing of intellectualism is seriously hindering technological and social progress. If we really want to solve the major issues of the 21st Century we have to start behaving more rationally.

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."
Bertrand Russell

I disagree with Russell on one slight point here. I've seen far too many times when people have clung to their beliefs even when the evidence was overwhelming.

Take a second to read this article. It's good to see someone finaly give a skeptical report of facilitated comunication. FC is a cruel farce that just will not go away. In test after test after test it has been shown that the patient cannot answer simple questions when the facilitator does not know the answers. Show a patient a card with a word and a picture on it and even spell out the word for them and they can re-type the word with the facilitator’s assistance. Then take the facilitator out of the room, when another card is shown and the word spelled. Bring the facilitator back in and the patient cannot spell the word. The only reasonable conclusion here is the most obvious one, the facilitator is just using the patient’s hand like a Ouija board pointer and typing the word herself, not the patient. Since she didn’t see or hear the word she can’t answer the question.

This is a particular thorn in my side because as I’ve said before, my brother-in-law is severely autistic and primarily non-verbal. No single medical breakthrough would trill me more than the ability to sit down with him and have a meaningful conversation. Unfortunately, FC is not that breakthrough. I believe that most facilitators are self-deceived, but some of them know full well it is a scam and are selling parent’s false hope in order to make a buck. It really chaps my hide to see once again some idiot reporter give a totally credulous report of a non-medical breakthrough. An eight year old can look at what is going on here and see right past it, but somehow reporters at MSNBC who call themselves "Dr" are completely taken in.

A few months ago I listened to an interview with the author Jon Ronson about his new documentary book The Men Who Stare at Goats. The interview was very lighthearted and so I thought the book would be a fun read. As I read one chapter after another what started out as a lighthearted view of some of the silly stuff that our tax dollars have paid for soon turned into a very disturbing expose’ of the insanity that goes on under the moniker of Special Ops.
The book is a story about Ronson’s investigation of the US military’s experiments on all sorts of pseudoscientific projects. Soon after Vietnam the military began to reconsider much of its fighting strategy. Nothing was taken off of the table. With the assistance of a few men with some downright crazy ideas they began to serious talk about the formation of a special ops battalion that had Jedi powers. They even referred to themselves as warrior monks and honestly believed that they could psychically influence their enemies to surrender just by using their mind, comforting colors and subliminal sounds. The most advanced of these “warrior monks” believed they could literally walk through walls and psychically stop the heart of an enemy just by concentrating hard enough, hence the title of the book. Ronson spent two years trying to track down the one guy who he was told had actually killed a goat by starring at it only to find out that the best he could do was to make a hamster behave oddly.
These chapters were funny and a little bit amusing. The later chapters took a far more serious tone. Rosnon shows that many of the very same people who thought they could star a goat to death were also behind a group that thought they could remote view, or psychically project their vision and get advance intelligence. One of these “viewers” left the military and started predicting all sorts of prophecies on am radio shows. Eventually one of his failed predictions led to the mass suicides of the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult.
Some of the more perverse of these psychic techniques were adapted by the more mainstream military and intelligence departments. Ronson interviews a British citizen who was captured by the US military and subjected to all sorts of torture and abuse for two years while he was held captive at Guantanamo Bay. Ronson was able to show a pretty convincing link between these activities and some of the original proposals set forth when they tried to for the battalion of “warrior monks”.
In the process of doing some background research and fact checking the book I noticed that this book is being made into a movie staring Ewan McGregor and George Clooney. The movie is billed as a comedy. It’d have to be a very dark comedy. Also none of the names of characters match the real people named in the book. I can only assume that the names were changed for the movie or that the movie will be only loosely based on the book.
My biggest criticism of the book was its lack of footnotes and sources. I have a big bias towards heavily footnoted books.
I have a big problem with people and organizations that don’t base their actions and opinions on facts and reason. This book is a bright light on those in the US Military who wish to wage war based on illogic, superstition and magical thinking.

Dear Mr King,
Tomorrow night you will be interviewing a very dangerous woman. Jenny McCarthy and her ridiculous stance against vaccines are endangering and have cost human lives. I would encourage you to cancel this interview and not to give her the pulpit to preach her nonsense to your audience. If a celebrity were to go on a campaign, writing book after book claiming that seat belts cause injuries it would be irresponsible for you not to call them out on it. That is exactly what Jenny McCarthy is doing except rather than life-saving seat belts it is the life-saving device vaccines that she has targeted for her expletive laced ire.

If you decide to still give her access to your prime time audience may I suggest a few questions?

1) Now that Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been proved to have serious conflict of interest problems as well having faked his data that supports the link between autism and the MMR vaccine, why are you continuing your campaign in spite of the massive evidence that you have been deceived by Dr. Wakefield?

2) Recently when questioned about the increase of measles and other vaccine preventable deaths you responded,
"I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism."
Are you seriously blaming the vaccine producer for the death of a child that didn't even use the product? I have a headache but I haven't taken any aspirin. Is it therefore Bayer's fault that I have a headache? I don't follow your logic here.

3) Pittsburgh is currently having an outbreak of measles. What would you say to the mothers of those patients, "Hey, at least they're not autistic."? Have you visited the bedside of any of these victims who are dying as martyrs for your cause?

4) Are you familiar with the website Jennymccarthybodycount.com? Do you have any response to their claims?

5) The last time were on the show you gave a list of vaccines to one of the doctors present and asked if all of them were really necessary. He responded by asking you which of those diseases you would like your son to contract. You didn't answer his question then so I'd like to hear your answer now. Of all the vaccine preventable illnesses out there which would you willingly put your child at risk of contracting? Polio? Measles? Haemophilus influenzae type b?

6) Years ago you were rather vocal about your son being an Indigo Child, that he was the next step in human evolution and had an indigo colored aura. Do you think that history helps or hinders your credibility as you now try to go head to head with doctors, scientist and immunologists to tell them what really causes and cures autism?

7) I am truly grateful that your son's condition is improving and becoming more manageable. However rather than thinking that you have cured him of autism, is it possible that his condition hasn't really gotten better but, that you are just growing used to the routine and things are going smoother than at first? Have you also considered the possibility that he may have been misdiagnosed? Either of these seems much more likely than a Playboy centerfold with no medical training at all just discovered the cause and cure of autism.

Mr. King, any one of these questions would be a welcome change from the slow easy pitches over the middle of the plate for which you have become so notorious. I will be watching tomorrow and I look forward to reviewing your interview favorably. But considering CNN's past treatment of this issue I won't be holding my breath.

Michael