Science
Science, lies, and stolen emails
As this is a blog about medicine, I haven’t written much about global warming. Moreover, until a few months ago, I was a bit of a skeptic about the science behind global warming. My skepticism was centered on a few key points that I didn’t feel had been adequately addressed:
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
- First, I was unconvinced that current temperatures exceeded that of the Medieval Warm Period, a period of warm climate in the North Atlantic from about 800 to 1300. During this time, the weather was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize Greenland and to support a settlement in Newfoundland.
- Second, California glaciers (yes California has numerous glaciers), like Palisade Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada mountain ranges were only about 700 years old, so obviously (to me), it’s colder today than it was before these glaciers formed.
- Third, the earth is just so complicated, it might take hundreds if not thousands of years of data to see any real trends.
Of course, my feelings on global warming would demolish my bona fides to be skeptical about alternative medicine and other pseudoscience. However, I thought the true global warming deniers (and even more so, those who deny the human cause of global warming) were true pseudoscientists, so I decided to study it myself, learning as much as I could about the subject. As I did, my skepticism faded. I found out that the Medieval Warm Period wasn’t as warm as I presumed, and that there is little global evidence that it was actually warmer then compared to today. In fact, regional differences in temperature can be large. I guess it goes back to correlation vs. causation. I was being pseudoscientific in my early thinking about global warming.
Actually, my discomfort with the much of what I was hearing from global warming deniers was similar to what I read from the anti-vaccination crowd. Each of the climate change denier’s pseudoscience is easily debunked. Read More...
The 124th Meeting Of The Skeptics’ Circle
Nov/21/09 08:19 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Evidence based medicine | Quackery | Alternative medicine
One of my favorite bloggers on debunking medical quackery and pseudoscience is hosting a little party. Visit, and read some of the best articles on debunking myths, pseudoscience, quacks and anti-science. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 3
Nov/19/09 09:12 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
This is part of my ongoing discussion on how quacks use pseudoscience to push their myths and potions on the world. Part 1 discussed the scientific method, which allows us to objectively analyze the natural world. Part 2 discussed the best way for us to examine the difference between science and pseudoscience.
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
I just read an outstanding analysis, by Steven Novella, MD, a clinical neurologist at Yale University, of how pseudoscience (those who pretend to praise the scientific method, yet do it in a way that is not actually science) and anti-science (those who repudiate science outright, or even undermine science, with subjective analysis and untestable spirituality) to reject evidence-based medicine.
Dr. Novella clearly states how science in medicine works:
This leads us to the final continuum – the consensus of expert opinion based upon systematic reviews can either result in a solid and confident unanimous opinion, a reliable opinion with serious minority objections, a genuine controversy with no objective resolution, or simply the conclusion that we currently lack sufficient evidence and do not know the answer. It can also lead, of course, to a solid consensus of expert opinion combined with a fake controversy manufactured by a group driven by ideology or greed and not science. The tobacco industry’s campaign of doubt against the conclusion that smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer is one example.The anti-vaccine movement’s fear-mongering about vaccines and autism is another. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 2
Nov/04/09 16:30 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
A few days ago, I discussed how science works. It's not a belief. It's not a random set of rules. It is a rational and logical process to determine cause and effect in the natural world. Pseudoscience, by its very nature, ignores the scientific process; instead, it pretends to come to conclusions through science, although it does not.
Again, be very wary if you hear someone say, "it's proven." I've heard those words from both alternative medicine pushers and from well-trained physicians. I have previously discussed the ineffectiveness of almost every alternative medicine therapy. But what about your physician? They are, by far, devoted to your health and well-being. But they cannot know everything about medicine (thus, why we have specialists), so they may repeat information that is not valid. Read More...
Again, be very wary if you hear someone say, "it's proven." I've heard those words from both alternative medicine pushers and from well-trained physicians. I have previously discussed the ineffectiveness of almost every alternative medicine therapy. But what about your physician? They are, by far, devoted to your health and well-being. But they cannot know everything about medicine (thus, why we have specialists), so they may repeat information that is not valid. Read More...
How pseudoscience makes its case, Part 1
Nov/02/09 09:38 Filed in: Pseudoscience | Science | Vaccines | Alternative medicine | Evidence based medicine
I always get suspicious when someone makes an argument with the statement of "it's been proven to work", "the link is proven", or, alternatively, they state the negative. Typically, I hear these kinds of statements from the pseudoscience pushing group. Many of us have debunked the "there is a proven link between vaccines and autism." Or that any number of alternative medicine (CAM) therapies don't actually work. In fact, science rarely uses the term "proven", because the scientific method is not a system to make a definitive answer on any question–scientists always leave open the possibility of an alternative hypothesis that can be tested. If the alternate hypothesis can be supported through experimentation, then it can replace the original one. When an alternative medicine or junk science supporter states "it has been proven" then you can be assured that conclusion is unsupported by scientific research. Read More...