Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Archive for the ‘unwarranted dogmatism in science’ Category

We are being routinely misled about health and diet

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/24

Most of what the media make a fuss about over health or diet should not be believed.

It should not be believed even as it cites peer-reviewed articles or official guidelines. All too often the claims made are based on misuse of statistics and are an abuse of common sense.

That little rant was set off by a piece in the august New York Times: “Pollution leads to greater risk of dementia among older women, study says”).

Alarms were triggered:
“Older women”: Only among older and not younger? Women but not men?

The original article did not improve my mood:
The pollution actually studied was “fine particulate matter, P.M. 2.5, 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter”: What about 2.5 to 3, say? Or 3 to 4? And so on.
“Women with the genetic variant APOE4, which increases the risk of Alzheimer’s disease, were more likely to be affected by high levels of air pollution”:
Is this asserting that there’s synergy? That the combined effect is not just the added effects of the two factors? That pollution is not just an independent risk factor but somehow is more effective with APOE4 carriers? So what about APOE3 or APOE2 carriers?

The New York Times piece mentioned some other studies as well:
“[P]renatal exposure to air pollution could result in children with greater anxiety, depression and attention-span disorders”.
“[A]ir pollution caused more than 5.5 million premature deaths in 2013”.

With those sort of assertions, my mind asks, “How on earth could that be known?”
What sort of study could possibly show that? What sort of data, and how much of it, would be required to justify those claims?

So, with the older women and dementia, how were the observational or experimental subjects (those exposed to the pollution) distinguished from the necessary controls that were not exposed to pollution? Controls need to be just like the experimental subjects (in age, state of health, economic circumstances, etc.) with the sole exception that the latter were exposed to pollution and the controls were not.
For the controls not to be exposed to the pollution, obviously the two groups must be geographically separate. Then what other possibly pertinent factors differed between those geographic regions? How was each of those factors controlled for?

In other words, what’s involved is not some “simple” comparison of polluted and not polluted; there is a whole set of possibly influential factors that need somehow to be controlled for.

The more factors, the larger the needed number of experimental subjects and controls; and the required number of data points increases much more than linearly with the number of variables. Even just that realization should stimulate much skepticism about many of the media-hyped stories about diet or health. Still more skepticism is called for when the claim has to do with lifestyle, since the data then depend on how the subjects recall and describe how they have behaved.

The dementia article was published in Translational Psychiatry, an open-access journal from the Nature publishing group. The study had enrolled 3647 women aged between 65 and 79. That is clearly too small a number for all possibly relevant factors to have been controlled for. Many details make that more than a suspicion, for example, “Women in the highest PM2.5 quartile (14.34–22.55 μg m −3) were older (aged ≥75 years); more likely to reside in the South/Midwest and use hormonal treatment; but engage less in physical activities and consume less alcohol, relative to counterparts (all P-values <0.05. . . )” — in other words, the highest exposure to pollution was experiences by subjects who differed from controls and from other subjects in several ways besides pollution exposure.

At about the same time as the media were hyping the dementia study, there was also “breaking news” about how eating enough fruit and vegetables protects against death and disease, based on the peer-reviewed article “Fruit and vegetable intake and the risk of cardiovascular disease, total cancer and all-cause mortality — a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies”.

Meta-analysis means combining different studies, the assumption being that the larger amount of primary data can make conclusions stronger and firmer. However, that requires that each of the individual studies being drawn on is sound and that the subjects and circumstances are reasonably comparable in all the different studies. In this case, 95 studies reported in 142 publications were analyzed. Innumerable factors need to be considered — the specific fruit or vegetable (one cannot presume that apples and pears have the same effect, nor cauliflower and carrots); and the effects of different amounts of what is eaten must somehow be taken into account. There are innumerable variables, in other words, permitting considerable skepticism about the claims that “An estimated 5.6 and 7.8 million premature deaths worldwide in 2013 may be attributable to a fruit and vegetable intake below 500 and 800 g/day, respectively, if the observed associations are causal” and that ‘Fruit and vegetable intakes were associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality. These results support public health recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable intake for the prevention of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and premature mortality.” Skepticism is yet more called for since health and mortality are influenced to a great extent by genetics and geography, which were not controlled for.
The authors deserve credit, though, for the clause, “if the observed associations are causal”. What everyone should know about statistics is that correlations, associations, never prove causation. That law is almost universally ignored as the media disseminate press releases and other spin from researchers and their institutions, implying that associations are meaningful about what causes what.

It is easy enough to understand why considerable skepticism should be exercised with claims like those about mortality and diet or about dementia and pollution, simply because studies to test these claims properly would need to include much larger numbers of subjects. But an even greater reason to doubt such claims, as well as claims about newly approved drugs and treatments, is that the statistical analyses commonly used are inherently flawed, most particularly by a quite inadequate criterion for statistical significance.

Almost universally in social science and in medical science, statistical significance is defined as p≤0.05: the probability that the results are mere coincidence, owing just to random chance, is less than 5%, in other words less than 1 in 20.

Several things are wrong with that. Among the most serious are:

  1. That something is not a coincidence, not owing to random chance, does not tell us what it is owing to, what the cause is. It is not necessarily the experimenter’s hypothesis, yet that is the assumption made universally with this type of statistical analysis.
  2. 1 in 20 is a very weak criterion. It means that 1 in every 20 “statistically significant” conclusions is wrong. Do 20 studies, and on average one of them will be “statistically significant” even though it is wrong.
  3. That something is statistically significant does not mean that the effect is meaningful.
    For example, after I had a TIA (transient ischemic attack, minor stroke), the neurologist automatically prescribed the “blood thinner” Plavix, clopidogrel, as lessening the risk of further strokes. I am wary of all drugs since they all have “side” effects, so later I searched the literature and found that Plavix is statistically significantly better at decreasing risk than is aspirin, p = 0.043, better than p≤0.05. However, the relative efficacies found were just 5.83% compared to 5.32%; to my mind, not at all a significant difference, not enough to compensate for the greater risk of “side” effects from clopidogrel than from aspirin which has been in use for far longer by far more people without discovery of seriously dangerous “side” effects. (Chemicals don’t have two types of effect, main and side, those we want and those we don’t want. “Side” effects are just as real as the intended effects.)

Many statisticians have pointed out for many years what is wrong with the p-value approach to statistics and its use in social science and in medical science. More than two decades ago, an editorial in the British Medical Journal pointed to “The scandal of poor medical research” [i] with incompetent statistical analysis one of the prime culprits. Matthews [ii] has explained clearly point 1 above. Colquhoun [iii] explains that p ≤ 0.05 makes for wrong conclusions even more often than 1 in 20 times: “If you use p=0.05 to suggest that you have made a discovery, you will be wrong at least 30% of the time”. Gigerenzer [iv] has set out in clear detail the troubles with the commonly used p-value analysis.
Nevertheless, this misleading approach continues to be routine, standard, because it is so simple that many researchers who have no real understanding of statistics can use it. Among the consequences is that most published research findings are false [v] and that newly approved drugs have had to be withdrawn sooner and sooner after their initial approval [vi].
Slowly the situation improves as systemic inertia is penetrated by a few initiatives. A newly appointed editor of the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) announced that p-value analyses would no longer be required [vii], and soon after that they were actually banned [viii].

In the meantime, however, tangible damage is being done by continued use of the p-value approach in the testing and approval of prescription drugs, which adds to a variety of deceptive practices routinely employed by the pharmaceutical industry in clinical trials, see for example Ben Goldacre, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients (Faber & Faber, 2013); Peter C. Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare (Radcliffe, 2013); David Healy, Pharmageddon (University of California Press, 2012). Gøtzsche and Healy report that prescription drugs, even though “properly” used, are the 3rd or 4th leading cause of death in developed countries.

***************************************************************************

[i] D G Altman, BMJ, 308 [1994] 283

[ii] Matthews, R. A. J. 1998. “Facts versus Factions: The use and abuse of subjectivity in scientific research.” European Science and Environment Forum Working Paper; pp. 247-82 in J. Morris (ed.), Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Oxford: Butterworth (2000).

[iii] David Colquhoun, “An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values”, Royal Society Open Science, 1 (2014) 140216; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.14021

[iv] Gerd Gigerenzer, “Mindless statistics”, Journal of Socio-Economics, 33 [2004] 587-606)

[v] (John P. A. Ioannidis, “Why most published research findings are false”, PLoS Medicine, 2 [#8, 2005] 696-701; e124)

[vi] Henry H. Bauer, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland, 2012, Table 5 (p. 240) and text pp. 238-42

[vii] David Trafimow, Editorial, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36 (2014) 1-2

[viii] (David Trafimow & Michael Marks, Editorial, BASP, 37 [2015] 1-2; comments by Royal Statistical sociry[viii] and at https://www.reddit.com/r/statistics/comments/2wy414/social_psychology_journal_bans_null_hypothesis/)

Posted in media flaws, medical practices, peer review, prescription drugs, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Political Correctness in Science

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/03/06

Supposedly, science investigates via the scientific method: testing the validity of hunches (hypotheses) against reality and allowing reality to establish beliefs, thereby discarding disproved pre-judgments, hunches, prejudices, biases. Scientific theories. are determined by facts, evidence.   Science is empirical, pragmatic; it does not accept beliefs on authority or from tradition.

Historians, philosophers, sociologists, scholars of Science & Technology Studies have long recognized that this view of science is mythical (i), but it continues to be taught in schools and in social-science texts and it is the conventional wisdom found in the media and in public discourse generally. A corollary of the misconception that scientific theories have been successfully tested against reality is the widespread belief that what science says, what the contemporary scientific consensus is, can safely be accepted as truth for all practical purposes.

So it seems incongruous, paradoxical, that large numbers of scientists should disagree violently, on any given issue, over what science really says. Yet that is the case on a seemingly increasing range of topics (ii), some of them of great public import, for instance whether HIV causes AIDS (iii) or whether human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change. On those latter matters as well as some others, the difference of opinion within the scientific community parallels political views: left-leaning (“liberal”) opinion regards it as unquestionably true that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming and climate change, whereas right-leaning (“conservative”) opinion denies that those assertions constitute “settled science” or have been proved beyond doubt. Those who harbor these “conservative” views are often labeled “denialists”; it is not to be countenanced that politically liberal individuals should be global warming skeptics (iv).

In other words, it is politically incorrect to doubt that HIV causes AIDS or that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. It requires no more than cursory observation of public discourse to recognize this pervasive phenomenon. Governments and Nobel-Prize committees illustrate that those beliefs are officially acted on as though they were established truths. One cadre of mainstream scientists even wants criminal charges laid (v) against those who question that global warming is caused primarily by human-generated carbon dioxide. So political correctness is present within the scientific community in the USA.

I’m of a sufficient age to be able to testify that half a century ago it would not have occurred to any researchers in a democratic society to urge the government to prosecute for criminal conspiracy other researchers who disagreed with them. Declaring certain scientific research programs as politically incorrect and therefore substantively without merit, and persecuting those who perpetrated such research, characterized totalitarian regimes, not free societies. Stalin’s Soviet Union declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of genetics and imprisoned exponents of it; it also declared wrong the rest of the world’s understanding of chemical bonding and quantum mechanics. Nazism’s Deutsche Physik banned relativity and other “Jewish” science.

**************************************************************

Political correctness holds that HIV causes AIDS and that human-generated carbon dioxide is the prime cause of global warming. Those beliefs also characterize left-leaning opinion. Why is political correctness a left-wing phenomenon?

In contemporary usage, political correctness means “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology” (vi) or “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated” (vii), evidently “progressive” or “liberal” or Left-ish views. But those descriptions fail to capture the degree of fanatical dogmatism that can lead practicing scientists to urge that those of differing views be criminally prosecuted; political correctness includes the wish to control what everyone believes.

Thus political correctness has been appropriately called “liberal fascism”, which also reveals why it is a phenomenon of the ultra-extreme Left. Attempted control of beliefs and corresponding behavior is openly proclaimed, unashamedly, by the extreme Right; it is called, and calls itself, fascism, Nazism, and needs no other name. But the Left, the “liberals”, claim to stand for and to support individual freedom of belief and speech; so a name is needed for the phenomenon by which proclamations of liberal ideals are coupled with attempts to enforce adherence to particular beliefs and social norms. Political correctness is the hypocrisy of self-proclaimed liberals functioning as authoritarian fascists.

That hypocrisy pervades political correctness, I was able to observe at first hand during my years in academic administration. People say things they don’t mean, and that they know everyone knows they don’t mean, and no one dares point to the absence of the Emperor’s clothes. For instance, the Pooh-Bahs assert that affirmative action means goals and not quotas, even as hiring practices and incentives demonstrate that they are quotas. For innumerable examples gathered over the years, see the newsletter I edited from 1993 until my retirement at the end of 1999 (viii).

********************************************

Science had represented for a long time the virtues associated with honest study of reality. Around the 1930s and 1940s, sociologist Robert Merton could describe the norms evidently governing scientific activity as communal sharing of universally valid observations and conclusions obtained by disinterested people deploying organized skepticism. That description does not accommodate researchers urging criminal prosecution of peers who disagree with them about evidence or conclusions. It does not accommodate researchers lobbying publishers to withdraw articles accepted for publication following normal review; and those norms do not describe the now prevalent circumstances in which one viewpoint suppresses others through refusal to allow publication or participation in scientific meetings (ix).

Science, in other words, is not at all what it used to be, and it is not what the popular view of it is, that common view having been based on what scientific activity used to be. It has not yet been widely recognized, how drastically science has changed since about the middle of the 20th century (x). Among the clues indicative of those changes are the spate of books since the 1980s that describe intense self-interested competition in science (xi) and the increasing frequency of fraud, again beginning about in the 1980s, that led to establishment of the federal Office of Research Integrity. That political correctness has surfaced within the scientific community is another illustration of how radically different are the circumstances of scientific activity now compared to a century ago and by contrast to the outdated conventional wisdom about science.

Political correctness began to pervade society as a whole during the same years as science was undergoing drastic change. The roots of political correctness in society at large may be traceable to the rebellious students of the 1960s, but the hegemony of their ideals in the form of political correctness became obvious only in the 1980s, when the term “political correctness” came into common usage:

The origin of the phrase in modern times is generally credited to gallows humor among Communists in the Stalin era (xii):

“Comrade, your statement is factually incorrect.”
“Yes, it is. But it is politically correct.”

That political correctness is in contemporary times a Left-ish phenomenon is therefore true to its modern origin.

How seriously political correctness corrupts science should be obvious, since it more than breaks all the traditional norms. Those norms are often summarized as universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, skepticism — taking for granted as well simple honesty and absence of hypocrisy. Nowadays what was taken for granted no longer applies. It is simply dishonest to assert that something has been proven beyond doubt when strong contrary evidence exists that is taken seriously by competent researchers. One cannot, of course, look into the minds of those who assert certainty where there is none (xiii), but among possible explanations, hypocrisy may be the least culpable.

Science cannot be isolated from the rest of society, so the incursion of political correctness into science is understandable. Moreover, what used to be the supposedly isolated ivory tower of academe is nowadays the very epicenter where political correctness breeds and from where it spreads. Whatever the causes may be, however, it is important to recognize how science has changed and that it can be corrupted by the same influences as the rest of society.

***************************************************************************

i        Henry H. Bauer, Scientific Literacy and Myth of the Scientific Method, University of Illinois Press 1992; http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/77xzw7sp9780252064364.html.

ii       Henry H. Bauer, Dogmatism   in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland 2012.

iii      Henry H. Bauer, The Origin, Persistence and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory, McFarland 2007.

iv      Henry H. Bauer, “A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?”, 2012/11/25; https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/a-politically-liberal-global-warming-skeptic.

v       Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren, 1 September 2015; http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/09/19/letter-to-president-obama-investigate-deniers-under-rico.
The original pdf posted in 2003 at http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf is no longer there. The Wayback Machine says, “The letter that was inadvertently posted on this web site has been removed. It was decided more than two years ago that the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES) would be dissolved when the projects then undertaken by IGES would be completed. All research projects by IGES were completed in July 2015, and the IGES web site is in the process of being decommissioned”.
As of March 2017, however, a Google search for “Institute of Global Environment and Society” led to a website with that header, albeit augmented by “COLA”: http://www.m.monsoondata.org/home.html accessed 4 March 2017. Right-leaning Internet sources offer insight into this seeming mystery: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/22/lead-climate-scientist-behind-obamarico-letter-serious-questions-answer/ and http://leftexposed.org/2015/10/institute-of-global-environment-and-society, both accessed 4 March 2017.

vi      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/politically-correct?s=t (accessed 4 March 2017).

vii     https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct (accessed 4 March 2017).

viii    https://web.archive.org/web/20131030115950/http://fbox.vt.edu/faculty/aaup/index4.html.

ix      Ref. ii, especially chapter 3.

x       Henry H. Bauer, “Three stages of modern science”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 27 (2013) 505-13; https://www.dropbox.com/s/xl6jaldtx3uuz8b/JSE273-3stages.pdf?dl=0.

xi      Natalie Angier, Natural Obsessions: The Search for the Oncogene, Houghton Mifflin 1987; David H. Clark, The Quest for SS433, Viking 1985; Sheldon Glashow with Ben Bova, Interactions: A Journey through the Mind of a Particle Physicist and the Matter of the World, Warner 1988; Jeff Goldberg Anatomy of a Scientific Discovery, Bantam 1988; Stephen S. Hall, Invisible Frontiers: The Race to Synthesize a Human Gene, Atlantic Monthly Press 1987; Robert M. Hazen, The Breakthrough: The Race for the Superconductor, Summit 1988; David L. Hull, Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press 1988; Robert Kanigel, Apprentice to Genius: The Making of a Scientific Dynasty, Macmillan 1986; Charles E. Levinthal,. Messengers of Paradise: Opiates and the Brain, Anchor/Doubleday 1988; Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, Simon and Schuster 1987; Ed Regis, Who Got Einstein’s Office: Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study, Addison-Wesley 1987; Bruce Schechter, The Path of No Resistance: The Story of the Revolution in Superconductivity, Touchstone (Simon and Schuster) 1990; Solomon H. Snyder, Brainstorming: The Science and Politics of Opiate Research, Harvard University Press 1989; Gary Taubes, Nobel Dreams: Power, Deceit, and the Ultimate Experiment, Random House 1986; Robert Teitelman, Gene Dreams: Wall Street, Academia, and the Rise of Biotechnology, Basic Books 1989; Nicholas Wade, The Nobel Duel: Two Scientists’ 21-Year Race to Win the World’s Most Coveted Research Prize, Doubleday 1981.

xii     Jon Miltimore, “The historical origin of ‘political correctness’”, 5 December 2016, http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/historical-origin-political-correctness; Angelo M. Codevilla, “The rise of political correctness”, Claremont Review of Books, Fall 2016, pp. 37-43; http://www.claremont.org/download_pdf.php?file_name=1106Codevilla.pdf.

xiii    Henry H. Bauer , “Shamans of Scientism: Conjuring certainty where there is none”, Journal of Scientific Exploration, 28 (2014) 491-504.

 

Posted in legal considerations, media flaws, politics and science, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human, the scientific method, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

Science: A Danger for Public Policy?!

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/02/08

Public policies rely on advice and consent from science about an ever wider range of issues (environmental challenges, individual and public health. infrastructure and its safety, military systems). Surely this is unquestionably good, that public policies are increasingly pragmatic through respecting the facts delivered by science?

No. Not necessarily, not always.

The central problem is that science — humankind’s understanding of nature, of the world — doesn’t just deliver facts. Science is perpetually incomplete. On any given question it may not be unequivocal.

The media, the public, policy makers, the legal system all presume that a contemporary consensus in the scientific community can be safely accepted as true for all practical purposes. The trouble is that any contemporary scientific consensus may later prove to have been wrong.

If this assertion seems outlandish —theoretically possible but so unlikely as to be ignorable in practice — it is because the actual history and nature of science are not widely enough understood.

The contemporary scientific consensus has in fact been wrong about many, perhaps even most of the greatest advances in science: Planck and quantums, Wegener and drifting continents, Mendel and quantitative genetic heredity; the scientific consensus and 1976   Nobel Prize for discovering the viral cause of mad-cow diseases was wrong; that stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria had been pooh-poohed by the mainstream consensus for some two decades before adherents of the consensus were willing to examine the evidence and then award a Nobel Prize in 2005.

Historical instances of a mistaken scientific consensus being have seemingly not affected major public policies in catastrophic ways, although one possible precedent for such unhappy influence may be the consensus that supported the eugenics movement around the 1920s, resulting in enforced sterilization of tens of thousands of people in the USA as recently as the latter half of the 20th century.

Nowadays, though, the influence of science is so pervasive that the danger has become quite tangible that major public policies might be based on a scientific consensus that is at best doubtfully valid and at worst demonstrably wrong.

The possibility that significant public actions might be dictated by an unproven scientific consensus was explicitly articulated by President Eisenhower. His warning against the potential influence of the military-industrial complex is quite often cited, but little cited is another warning he gave in the same speech:

“in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

That can happen when a contemporary scientific consensus is accepted as practical truth, as settled science. The crucial distinction could hardly be explained more clearly than Michael Crichton did in an invited lecture at CalTech:

“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. . . . It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

Crichton had in mind the present-day scientific consensus that human-caused generation of carbon dioxide is chiefly responsible for rising global temperatures and associated major climate-change. The fact that there are highly competent public dissenters — including such winners of Nobel Prizes as Ivar Giaever (Physics 1973), Robert Laughlin (Physics 1998), Kary Mullis (Chemistry 1993) — demonstrates that human-caused global warming is a consensus, not the unanimity associated with such “settled science” as the Periodic Table of the chemical elements or that E=mc2.

The proponents of human-caused global warming constitute an effective elite. Since they represent the contemporary consensus, they largely control peer review, research funding, and which research gets published; and they hold important positions in the halls of power of individual nations as well as in such international organizations as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The history of science is unequivocal: Contemporary scientific consensuses have been wrong on some of the most significant issues. Those who determine public policies would do well to seek an impartial comparison and analysis of the substantive claims made both by proponents of a mainstream consensus and by those who claim that the evidence does not prove that consensus to be unquestionably correct.

In absence of an impartial comparative analysis, public discourse and public actions are determined by ideology and not by evidence. “Liberals” assert that the mainstream consensus on global warming equals “science” and anyone who properly respects the environment is supposed to accept this scientific consensus. On the other side, many “conservatives” beg to differ, as when Senator Inhofe flourishes a snowball. One doubts that most proponents of either side could give an accurate summary of the pertinent evidence. That is not a very good way to discuss or to make public policy.

******************************************************************************

This little essay had been offered as an Op-Ed to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times. the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Financial Times (London), and USA Today. That it appears here confirms that none of those media stalwarts wanted to use it.

Posted in consensus, global warming, media flaws, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, scientism, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

What to believe? Science is a red herring and a wild-goose chase

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/07/24

To be certain about things is reassuring. It allows feelings of safety, security.

For knowledge, for understanding the world, humankind seems to have turned at first to what could be inferred from the spirits of things — the spirits associated with or inherent in everything: in mountains, in trees, in bodies of water. The spirits could be understood, at least partly, because they were similar to people in having emotions and desires.

Eventually — quite recently, only a few thousand years ago — the plurality and hierarchies of spirits and gods yielded to monotheistic religions in most parts of the world. Even more recently, and only in the most powerfully developed countries, religion yielded to science.

That is to say, traditional religion yielded to scientism, the religion of science. Even the monotheistic gods have emotions and desires, but science doesn’t. So knowledge became entirely impersonal, at least in principle.

Nowadays, then, for real certainty we look to science. “Scientific” stands for unquestionably true. Science is the gatekeeper of truth. “Science” and “scientific” are mediators of being certain, being sure about something.

Consequently, a great deal of arguing to-and-fro has to do with whether something is scientific:
Does it emerge from use of the scientific method?
Is it reproducible?
Is it falsifiable?

And if a claim doesn’t satisfy those criteria or equivalent ones then it’s dismissed as not scientific, or as pseudo-science, or as just plain not to be believed.

That’s an indirect way of judging believability, and arguments about whether something is scientific can be and have been highly abstract, complicated, and sophisticated as technical philosophical discourse tends to be.

Instead, why not go directly at the issues of certainty and truth and just ask, what does it take to be justifiably and reliably certain about something?

In any case, although we use science as mediator of certain truth, we’ve also learned that contemporary scientific knowledge and understanding really isn’t always reliably true. Even when an explanation has been based on tangible evidence, and withstood challenges and tests — if it’s properly scientific, in other words — we’ve learned that it may be misleading. Scientific progress with periodic scientific revolutions has continually revealed flaws, deficiencies, errors, in what were for a time the most widely and fully accepted scientific theories.

If something has always happened in the past, can we be certain that it always will happen in the future? We’ve learned that we cannot be quite certain.

When an explanation has always worked in the past, can we be certain that it always will work in the future? We’ve learned that we cannot be quite certain.

When tangible things are sub-divided into their ultimate components, those turned out to be nothing like objects accessible to direct human observation. They do not fit our concepts of particles or energy, although many of their reactions can be calculated using sometimes particle equations and sometimes wave equations. They behave sometimes as though they were locatable, delimited in space-time, and at other times appear to be “non-local”, not so delimited.

In other words, we’ve learned that we cannot get certain and humanly comprehensible understanding of everything about the whole of the natural world. It’s surely time to accept that, that human beings will never attain complete certainty.

That could be liberating. It would make more feasible pragmatic, non-ideological communication and cooperative action — if only we could be rid of the ideologues: the true believers in a religion, including the true believers in scientism, the religion of science. Anyone who claims complete certainty has insufficient warrant for that claim. The world and its behaviors can be known only within degrees of probability. Instead of arguing about whether something is scientific or whether it is true, we ought to be discussing plausibility, likelihood, utility, risk.

Instead of dismissing as pseudo-science the claims that Loch Ness Monsters are real animals, we should be content to say, “Feel free to believe that if the evidence seems to you sufficiently convincing. For my part, I’ll wait until someone shows me an actual specimen or an indubitable bit of one”. And similarly with yetis and other cryptids, and with UFOs, and with all other anomalous or Fortean reports or claims.

Instead of arguing over being for or against vaccination, we should ask for the statistical data of harm possibly caused by each specific vaccine. For instance, since in many countries the chance of becoming infected by polio is less than the risk of contracting polio from the oral vaccine. perhaps official sources might be less dogmatic about enforcing use of that particular vaccine (“Polio vaccines now the #1 cause of polio paralysis”; “Oral polio vaccine-associated paralysis in a child despite previous immunization with inactivated virus”; “Bill Gates’ polio vaccine program caused 47,500 cases of paralysis death“).

And so on. For every drug and every treatment, we should demand that the Food and Drug Administration require data on NNT and NNH — NNT: the number of patients needed to be treated in order that 1 patient benefit, compared with NNH: the number of patients who must receive a drug in order to have 1 patient experience harm [How (not) to measure the efficacy of drugs].  That would go a long way to decreasing the number of people nowadays being killed by prescription drugs, which are the 3rd or 4th leading cause of death in First-World countries (Peter C. Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted

Healthcare [Radcliffe, 2013]; David Healy, Pharmageddon [University of California Press, 2012]).

We need more data and less dogmatism.

 

 

Posted in medical practices, prescription drugs, science is not truth, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Dark matter” and dinosaur extinction

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/06

“Everyone” knows that the collision of an asteroid with Earth damaged the environment so much that the dinosaurs died out and only much smaller creatures survived. Many also know that the impact crater, the Chicxulub crater, has been found beneath the surface near the Yucatan peninsula. Just consult Wikipedia, or Google for more sources.

Except: Google also turns up some reservations, for instance “What really killed the dinosaurs? New challenges to the impact theory” (BBC program).

Several decades ago already, paleontologist Dewey McLean (as well as some other geologists and paleontologists) had made the case that the dinosaur extinction was brought about by climate changes owing largely to the enormous volcanic activity associated with the Deccan Traps (a region in India) —
see Dewey M. McLean, “Impact winter in the global K/T extinctions: no definitive evidence”, pp. 493-503 in Global Biomass Burning: Atmospheric, Climatic, and Biospheric Implications, ed. J. S. Levine, MIT Press, 1991.
(McLean’s somewhat lonely public dissidence is mentioned in my book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine [McFarland 2012, pp. 97-8]. I knew McLean, we worked at the same university.)

Donald Prothero is also a paleontologist. Recently he posted the following in a book review on amazon.com:
“that the impact at the end of the Cretaceous is the primary cause of the extinction of dinosaurs has been discredited in recent years. . . . the consensus has now swung to the idea that the massive Deccan eruptions in India and Pakistan were far more important to the end-Cretaceous extinctions.”

Prothero’s review is of the book by Lisa Randall, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs: The Astounding Interconnectedness of the Universe, which postulates the presence in the Milky Way (our galaxy) of a disc of “dark matter” that somehow periodically liberates comets or asteroids that go on to cause periodic extinction events on Earth.
In his amazon.com review, Prothero also debunks the notion that extinctions follow an identifiably periodic pattern.

My own trouble with Randall’s speculation is that “dark matter” is no more than a fudge factor necessary to make Big-Bang cosmology fit the observed facts. There is no shred of direct empirical evidence that “dark matter” exists.
Things just don’t add up in Big-Bang cosmology. Actual observations of quasars and galaxies do not jibe with calculations based on the known force of gravity and on the presumption that redshifts reflect speed relative to Earth (Doppler effect).
There isn’t enough gravity. So “dark matter” was invented to yield that needed extra gravity. “Dark matter” is associated with “dark energy”, for which we have no evidence either.
All this “dark” stuff is supposed to make up more than 90% of the universe, at the same time as “dark” is the euphemism for “we know nothing about it, we just need it to make the equations balance”.

This collection of science fiction is treated respectfully by the media.

But there is a much simpler explanation for the failure of Big-Bang cosmology to fit the observed facts. There is strong evidence that redshifts of quasars do not always result purely from Doppler effects, that quasars are associated with the creation of new matter which has an inherent redshift:
— see Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Interstellar Media 1987) and Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Apeiron 1998); for a summary, see pp. 113-18 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine.

Which all goes to show, as many others besides me have often remarked, that “What everyone knows is usually wrong (about science, say)”.  On all but the most non-controversial issues, TED talks and Wikipedia entries are among the sources most likely to be wrong, moreover wrong dogmatically, insistently, aggressively, uncompromisingly, as they treat every contemporary (and thereby temporary) mainstream consensus as Gospel truth.

A pervasive problem is that mainstream dogmas are taken as truth by people outside the particular field of knowledge:
Randall is a physicist, so she is not familiar with the range of views among paleontologists and geologists.
On the matter of HIV/AIDS, one finds economists like South African Nicoli Nattrass (The AIDS Conspiracy: Science fights back) and political scientists like Courtney Jung (Lactivism: How feminists and fundamentalists, hippies and yuppies, and physicians and politicians made breastfeeding big business and bad policy) getting the facts totally wrong, even citing mainstream sources incorrectly.
Many social scientists get a whole lot wrong about science, as when Steven Shapin asserted that scientists don’t value their technicians appropriately (p. 142 in Fatal Attractions: The Troubles with Science, Paraview Press 2001).
No one is immune, because we cannot look at the primary evidence on every topic of interest, so we have to decide, more or les by instinct, which mainstream beliefs to accept, at least provisionally, and which to doubt enough that further digging is called for. I went wrong by accepting mainstream views about UFOs and about homosexuality,  for example, and I’m probably wrong on some other issues where I haven’t yet woken up to it. But at least I’m aware of the problem. The media, though, apparently are not aware of it, nor are the publishers who put out books like Nattrass’s or Jung’s or Randall’s.

 

Posted in consensus, media flaws, science is not truth, scientism, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Who can be trusted about science? Not the Royal Society of London or the National Academy of the United States

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2016/01/01

An earlier post (Mainstream propaganda by the BBC about denialism and global warming) described a BBC television documentary in which the President of the Royal Society of London presided over a thoroughly misleading piece of propaganda seeking to entrench mainstream dogma about human-caused climate change, HIV as the cause of AIDS, and the claimed safety of genetically modified foods and plants.

The merest smattering of knowledge of the history of science and a smidgeon of common sense ought to suffice to demonstrate that the mainstream dogma is unwarranted on all three of those issue, incidentally:

1. Human-caused climate change: There is simply no proof on offer. The dogma is based on the banality that carbon dioxide gas absorbs infrared radiation, and that global temperatures overall have been rising in the last 150 years or so at the same time as industrial development has increasingly generated carbon dioxide.
But global temperatures actually cooled from the 1940s to the 1970s while CO2 was increasing, and temperatures have remained steady since about 2000 while, again, CO2 continued to increase. QED.

2. HIV and AIDS. HIV is held responsible for an epidemic of AIDS spread chiefly through sexual intercourse.
The website of the National Institutes of Health reports the apparent transmissibility of HIV as 8 per 10,000 acts of unprotected intercourse, from male to female; transmissibility from female o male is half of that, 4 per 10,000. Any epidemic requires that each infected individual pass the infection on to more than one other person in a short space of time. Transmissibility of less than 1 per 1000 is entirely incapable of generating an epidemic.
For comparison, transmissibility of known sexually transmitted diseases is not far from 1 in 2 (for chlamydia, gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis).

3. All the conceivable possible dangers of genetically modified organisms and their products cannot possibly be known or measured. No matter how much data accumulates, the unknown unknown may at any time deliver a black swan to confound all the scientific predictions and assurances. Half a century ago Alvin Weinberg pointed that out with respect to the safety of nuclear reactors. “Science” of course declared them safe, in other words Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and Fukushima could not possibly have occurred. For what Wikipedia is worth, it lists 99 significant accidents in all.

But back to the Royal Society and human-caused climate change.

Andrew Montford has described in full detail how the Royal Society of London has been a proselytizer of human-caused climate change since at least 1989, under three successive Presidents and contrary to the Society’s proper role, which is to stick to science and leave politics and policy to others; see Nullius in Verba: On the Word of No One — The Royal Society and Climate Change.

The Royal Society pamphlet, A SHORT GUIDE TO climate science,  poses 20 questions and gives a one-paragraph pot-boiler answer to each, for example

“1. Is the climate warming?
Yes. Earth’s average surface air temperature has increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) since 1900, with much of this increase taking place since the mid-1970s. A wide range of other observations such as sea-level rise, reduced Arctic sea ice extent and increased ocean heat content provide
incontrovertible evidence of a warming Earth.”

These one-paragraph mind-bites are expanded in Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices (NatAcadPress2012-14673), published jointly by the Royal Society of London and the National Academy of science of the United States. The questions are the same but worded differently, for example the first is not “Is the climate warming?” but “How do we know that Earth has warmed?”.
That small change has a rhetorical significance that is far from small: the question is no longer treated as open, it is declared to have been settled.

All those answers are misleading in some way, however, and they have been thoroughly debunked in THE SMALL PRINT: What the Royal Society Left Out.

In response to question 1 and its answer, for example:
“A fuller picture: This is hardly an important question. The Earth’s surface is always warming or cooling, or on some occasions barely changing. What is important is that the change referred to is small and imperfectly measured. It should also be stressed that the Royal Society guide does not mention the role of the time window they are using for comparison. The climate has cooled since the mid-Holocene climatic optimum 8,000 years ago, and the warming of the past few decades is relatively small in comparison.
Surface temperatures have increased on average by about 0.8°C since 1900. There was a rise of around 0.5°C at the start of the twentieth century, followed by a small fall from 1940 to 1970. From then until the late 1990s temperatures rose by around 0.5°C. Differences of a tenth of a degree are insignificant. The temperature is virtually unchanged from that at the beginning of the century. The two periods of increase are indistinguishable, although the earlier increase cannot be attributed to increased carbon dioxide.
The relation of other observations such as sea-level rise, Arctic sea ice extent and ocean heat content all depend on more factors than global mean temperature, and are hardly incontrovertible evidence of warming. That said, the possible acceleration of ocean heat content accumulation and sea level rise are close to the limits of our ability to detect and the values involved cannot be reconciled to each other. Depending on the time scale, other observational datasets are still more equivocal: global sea ice levels declined for several decades but are now above their long-term mean.”

In any case, on an even longer time-scale, that global temperatures are increasing is not in dispute, given that we are only about 15,000 years after a major Ice Age and it will likely be warming for about another 80,000-100,000 years or so before it cools again toward the next major Ice Age — there have been 7 or 8 such major Ice Ages in the last million years or so.

Only a couple of years after the Royal Society and National Academy had published Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts, and Choices, the same two bodies published Climate Change: Evidence and Causes (NatAcadPress2014-18730), which goes even further in declaring settled as fact that human generation of carbon dioxide has been primarily responsible for global warming. This last pamphlet is replete with rhetorical trickery, sins of omission and of commission, and is clearly propaganda, nothing like a cool scientific assessment of the evidence. My detailed critique of it has just been published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration: NAS-RS Review.

That the Royal Society and the National Academy are actively pushing to entrench as settled belief that human activities are producing climate change is evident from the way in which their publications have become increasingly one-sided, emphatic, and regrettably dishonest.

 

Posted in global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

The political division over climate change

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/11/01

A friend sent me this link  to a report of Senator Ted Cruz showing himself to know more about science and facts associated with alleged global warming than does the chair of the Sierra Club.

Looking for coverage of this story from other viewpoints simply confirmed that The Left  has its own facts and theories and The Right  has its own different facts and theirs, as I remarked in the inaugural post on this blog, A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?

In my view, Cruz is right on the science in this case but quite wrong in his politics. So I seem able to keep my science and my politics separate — but then perhaps that is not the case on every issue?

 

Posted in global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Climate change “deniers”

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/10/16

Very good piece, “Climate change denier silenced for doing Climate Science and disagreeing with the science“.

“Philippe Verdier, weather chief at France Télévisions” is the lead in to the story, but it also cites Freeman Dyson, greatly respected physicist who for decades was at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton:
“‘It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change],’ he said, in an interview with The Register. ‘I’m 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.'”

Precisely my view: “A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?”.

 

Posted in denialism, global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Psychological toll of climate-science belief

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/11

Mountainmere  just drew our attention to the devastating psychological impact of belief in human-caused climate change.

Esquire carried (7 July) a story by John Richardson, “When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job: Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can’t really talk about it” — they are afraid to talk about it because of “the relentless campaign against them” in which the poor folk are labeled “alarmist”. (The heartbreaking Richardson story was picked up in a number of places, for instance “Climate Scientists Are Dealing with Psychological Problems”  as well as the Judith Curry blog that mountainmere had cited, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: climate scientists speak out”.)
If climate “scientists” want to know what a relentless campaign really looks like, they should examine the treatment meted out to those “denialists” who draw attention to the lack of evidence to support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.

Richardson’s featured climate-scientist victim, Jason Box, is a stereotypical ultra-environmentalist: an American who has worked for Greenpeace, demonstrated at the White House, claimed that sea levels would rise inevitably by 70 feet in the next few centuries, and “escaped America’s culture of climate-change denial” by moving from Ohio to Denmark. A report of methane seeping into Arctic sea-water so terrified Box that he immediately tweeted “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d”, which naturally brought a flurry of headlines.
Box looks at the worst, and among the least likely, of the various scenarios generated by the computer models used by climate “scientists” — models that have been demonstrably wrong for the last 15-18 years or so during which there has been no warming while carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise; models that fail to account for the 1940s-to-1970s period when global temperatures were actually decreasing while carbon-dioxide levels were steadily rising.
Box thinks “most scientists must be burying overt recognition of the awful truths of climate change in a protective layer of denial (not the same kind of denial coming from conservatives, of course). I’m still amazed how few climatologists have taken an advocacy message to the streets, demonstrating for some policy action.”

Richardson’s story is full of errors, notably that “warming is tracking the rise of greenhouse gases exactly as their models predicted”. No. The models have not predicted the empirical fact that global temperatures have been stable rather than rising since about 2000; some reports even have it as a cooling rather than a slowing or halt in global average temperature: http://isthereglobalcooling.com; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/the-portland-state-university-study-of-shrinking-mt-adams-glaciersa-good-example-of-bad-science; http://notrickszone.com/2013/09/12/no-warming-left-to-deny-global-cooling-takes-over-cet-annual-mean-temperature-plunges-1c-since-2000/#sthash.mowZKMjF.dpbs; http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here; http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783.

Richardson describes the terrible stress that climate scientists are under for bringing their message of lack of hope: “targets of an unrelenting and well-organized attack that includes death threats, summonses from a hostile Congress, attempts to get them fired, legal harassment, and intrusive discovery demands so severe they had to start their own legal-defense fund, all amplified by a relentless propaganda campaign nakedly financed by the fossil-fuel companies”.
It’s just as well that they can continue to do their depressing work with the help of large grants and that any attempts to have them fired went nowhere; and that the “intrusive discovery demands” were no more than to ask for the raw data on which Michael Mann conjured his alarmist “hockey-stick” graph of unprecedented rate of warming — a graph that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change dropped from its Reports because it was shown to be not a valid reorientation of the data. Professional scientific journals have increasingly being demanding that all data on which articles are based need to be made publicly available; it is not clear to me why climate “science” should be exempt. The only reason to keep data secret is to avoid that others could show that published analyses are flawed.
And those poor climate scientists suffered from having their e-mails hacked, revealing that they were deliberately fudging the evidence. (Google “Climategate” for details about that.)

So, anyway, those poor activist climate “scientists” are suffering gloom, sadness, fear, anger; “Dr. Lise Van Susteren, a practicing psychiatrist and graduate of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth slide-show training, calls this ‘pretraumatic’ stress.” Some are retreating off the grid to await the catastrophe. “No one has experienced that hostility more vividly than Michael Mann”, who barley manages to keep going as a well-paid tenured full professor at Penn State.

I urge you to read Richardson’s full story, especially the later parts that describe all the suffering that climate scientists endure.

For yet more insight, go to Judith Curry’s earlier blog post, “Pre-traumatic stress syndrome: Climate trauma survival tips”  which informs, among other things, about “the relatively new field of psychology of global warming”; followed by Curry’s sensible deconstruction of climate-change hysteria.

The unfortunate pre-traumatically stressed climate-“science” activists suffer quite unnecessarily. I recommend resort to the school of psychology, “rational-emotive therapy”, associated with the name of Albert Ellis; see his A New Guide to Rational Living, or Help yourself to happiness through rational self-counseling by Macie C. Maultsby, an acolyte of Ellis.
The essence of this approach is to list in writing one’s depressing thoughts, and then the emotions they arouse. Merely writing these down tends to reveal how out of all proportion the emotions are. Then, the really important part, annotate those depressing thoughts with the actual evidence.
With climate “scientists”, this should bring immediate relief, since all their depression arises only from computer models, whereas reality demonstrates that global warming is the result of the Earth recovering from the last Ice Age and that carbon dioxide has no appreciable effect, as proven by the periods from the 1940s to the 1970s and again since 2000, when “carbon” was being emitted relentlessly but Earth warmed not at all or even cooled.

 

Posted in denialism, funding research, global warming, media flaws, peer review, science is not truth, science policy, scientific culture, scientism, scientists are human, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Who looks at evidence? Almost no one

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/06/28

I’ve been a crank for a long time about Loch Ness Monsters, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at Tim Dinsdale’s 1960 film which shows quite clearly a huge animal swimming in Loch Ness, submerging while still throwing up a massive wake.

For more than a decade, I’ve been a crank about HIV not causing AIDS, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at the clear evidence that HIV tests don’t track something infectious, and that the numbers in plain sight on the website of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, rates of sexual transmission at less than 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse, mean that HIV cannot cause an epidemic.

Now I’ve become a crank about human-caused climate change, frustrated because people won’t look at the clear evidence that carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily even as the global temperature was level or dropping form the 1940s into the 1970s, when the experts were predicting an Ice Age; and as the global temperature has not increased since the end of the 1990s.

Why don’t people look at evidence?

Because, I’ve finally realized, they don’t want to risk having to change their mind. There is no positive incentive and plenty of negative incentive. It’s beyond cognitive dissonance, which is to evade the significance of evidence after having come across it. It’s obviously even better not to have come across the evidence at all.

On human-caused climate change (HCCC), disbelief is expressed loudly and publicly by “conservatives” (in my view more accurately described as reactionaries) who have that opinion for the wrong reasons, namely the belief that economic free markets are the most important thing and regulating anything is bad.

“Liberals” or “progressives”, on the other hand (who are actually not liberal or progressive but simply knee-jerk politically correct) don’t look at the evidence because they don’t need to, it’s of no interest to them, they would take their stance that humans cause environmental damage no matter what. And they maintain perfect deniability, they are blameless, they were just accepting what the authorities, the experts, have been saying loudly and incessantly.

Most of my family and friends treat my “reactionary” stance on HCCC as a minor flaw, allowing me space because I tend to get caught up in Quixotic stuff all the time. They have no interest in looking at the evidence because they are completely comfortable with the notion of HCCC because it fits their anti-reactionary political views — which I happen to share. If it turns out that this HCCC is mistaken, there would be all sorts of undesirable consequences, in particular that reactionary views might appear to have been vindicated.

I was distressed when Stephen Colbert took HCCC as proven. I am not happy when all the MSNBC crowd does so, but they’ve become too extreme for me anyway and I rarely watch. But I was very unhappy when Jon Stewart took HCCC as proven. And Pope Francis may have been the last straw (in the wind, as far as ever changing public opinion). Though I did get a sort of sardonic enjoyment from the pundits who pointed out that the Pope knew what he was talking about because he had been a chemist. And I am getting continuing Schadenfreude over the contortions of the Republican presidential candidates as they are forced to comment on the Pope’s encyclical.

Evidence-seeking, I realize, is an obsession of perhaps the tiniest minority there is. On the dangers of modern medical practice, there are just a few dozen voices crying out publicly in the wilderness. On HIV/AIDS, there is our Rethinking AIDS  group of some dozens of people, with a few thousand more quietly agreeing. On HCCC, there are a few academic types like myself who got here because of the evidence, and who subsist uncomfortably in the association with people whose political and social views we do not share, to put it mildly.

I’m beginning to accept that none of the items in my bucket list will see the light of an enlightened day within my lifetime: Nessie discovery, rejection of HIV=AIDS, rejection of carbon-dioxide-is-hurting-us.

But I do remain curious about how the “authorities” will adjust when reality eventually catches up with them irrevocably.

[Corrected 8 August 2015 in paragraph 7]

Posted in consensus, denialism, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, global warming, media flaws, medical practices, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , | 11 Comments »