Blogs / Bad Astronomy

Simon Singh is a science journalist being sued by the British Chiropractor Association for saying they "happily promote bogus treatment". The libel laws in the UK are ridiculously draconian, putting all the onus on the person being sued, contrary to the notion of presumed innocent until proven guilty, and also contrary to the libel laws of essentially every other nation on the planet.

A judge looked over the case and said that Simon’s use of the word bogus meant that he was ascribing ill motivations to the BCA, and allowed the case to continue. Simon was initially denied an appeal to this ruling, but then appealed that… and yesterday a court said he does indeed have the right to appeal! This is definitely a victory, but what it means is that Simon can now continue fighting this ridiculous suit and this ridiculous libel law. So there’s a long way to go.

But in a weird twist, the ever-vigilant Jack of Kent saw a press release by the BCA today that ascribed malice to Simon’s motivations for writing the original article. That’s a big deal; if they pursue this line of attack then it may limit Simon’s ability to defend himself. What’s funny is that saying Simon is malicious is itself defamatory, and to me it seems that he could sue them for libel. I don’t think he will, but… Jack of Kent later discovered that the press release was quickly edited, and the words about malice on Simon’s part was removed. However, the ‘net being what it is, the originally-worded press release is still out there.

[UPDATE: Jack has written a follow-up blog post about this, saying that the BCA has defamed Simon, and it appears Jack and I are in agreement. He also mentions that if Simon threatens to countersue the BCA -- which he has every right to do -- it may end the case right then and there. I know Simon well enough to know that he will think carefully about this; he wants to do the right thing in the long run, which is defend himself and show that the libel laws are awful. A happy aftereffect of this would be the global shaming of the BCA, which has been underway for months now; they have the most amusing ability to bend over backwards to make themselves look foolish... an ironic feat for a chiropractic association.]

Interesting. I know Jack is writing more on this, and I’ll update this when he has more.

Young Earth creationists can be sneaky. First, years ago, they loudly proclaimed their religious beliefs. Then when they got smacked hard in the courtrooms when they wanted to teach religion in schools, they evolved: they changed their snake oil to Intelligent Design and tried again.

And again they got whooped. ID was shown to be creationism in disguise — what some might call a bald-faced lie — so that again fundamentalists could attempt to teach religion in the classroom, despite the Constitution of the United States.

I have wondered aloud what they would do next. After all, when facts are slippery things, able to be misused as openly and ridiculously as so many creationists do, then clearly they won’t just give up. They’ll move on to the next deceptive technique.

And now I have to wonder if we’re starting to see it. Could this new tactic be: telling the truth?

Greg Fish of the blog World of Weird Things clued me in to a post on the execrable Answers In Genesis website talking about black holes. In this essay, creationist astronomer Jason Lisle discusses the topic with clarity and actual accuracy. He uses decent analogies, doesn’t let them run away from him, and makes a good case for the existence of black holes.

Wha wha whaaaa?

Of course, in the end, he says this:

Black holes provide an observable confirmation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Such physics is the basis for several young-universe cosmologies, which allow light from the most distant galaxies to reach earth in thousands of years or less. Scientific discoveries, such as black holes, are not only interesting, but they give us a small glimpse into the thoughts of an infinite God (Psalm 19:1).

Well, he certainly drops the ball there, letting it fall down (ha! haha!) a black hole. Cosmologies which abuse basic physics to change enough to allow a young Universe tend to be wrong in their basic assumptions.

But the point here is that the article itself is pretty much factually correct, making me wonder what’s going on here. Maybe the folks at AiG are hoping that by writing an article not filled with fallacious reasoning, they’ll reap the benefits of Google links (though not from me, since I put a rel=nofollow in the above link to the site). It’s hard to say. But given the sheer amount of nonsense on their site, it’s hard to ascribe noble motives to them.

And let me add an irony: on that page is a description of dark matter. I find that humorous, because dark matter was originally proposed to solve the mystery of how individual galaxies in clusters can move so quickly but still stay bound to the cluster itself. The gravity from the visible matter in the cluster was too weak to hold on to such rapidly-moving galaxies, and therefore, if the clusters are to not fly apart over the age of the Universe, there must be invisible matter holding them together.

So dark matter was originally proposed because we know the Universe is old. Of course, now we know that dark matter has influence all over the place, and would have been found even if we hadn’t studied clusters. But the irony still tickles me.

Anyway, what do we do here? Well, if creationists want to actually describe the Universe for what it really is, then I guess we let them… as long as they do so, pardon the pun, faithfully. But as soon as they step over that broad, broad line into territory clearly denied by the evidence, then they need to be called on it.

Eternal vigilance.

Recently, science writer Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for having the audacity of telling the truth in a newspaper article about chiropractic: while it may have some small efficacy when treating back problems, there is exactly zero good evidence that it can treat illnesses, and in fact can be very dangerous when people get their neck manipulated.

The Australian Skeptics posted Simon’s original article so that it would get more attention. And it worked, kinda: like a fly to honey, one chiropractor took offense at what was written, and decided to send them a nearly logic-free letter. That’s fine, and pretty much what I expect from a vocal alt-med devotée. As justified, Eran Segev, president of the Australian Skeptics, responded.

All well and good, until…

… two weeks after responding we received a letter from the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) indicating Mr Ierano [the chiropractor] has lodged a complaint against Australian Skeptics. The letter attached to the complaint was the same one that Australian Skeptics had received and responded to.

Well, that’s a bit odd! I mean, why go to the trouble to pursue legal action against someone responding to your claims when it should be easy to present a simple rebuttal based on the evidence that chiropractic works?

… oh, right.

What’s funny is that originally, the BCA (the group suing Simon in the UK) tried to defend their position, and presented a poorly-researched, off-topic press release that somehow managed to make them look worse. Apparently, that’s a theme amongst chiropractors trying to support some of their less reality-based claims.

And while I’m using a light-hearted tone here, I’ll note that this is a very serious issue: there are people out there trying to stifle free speech. It’s that simple. The UK libel laws are draconian and designed to shut up any protest, making scientific objections and investigations into potential and real quackery very difficult. As Eran says on the AS page:

Australian Skeptics sees this complaint as lacking any merit even if it did not include some factual errors (e.g. the claim that a British court ruled Simon’s article is biased). We have prepared a detailed response to the HCCC and will be defending our right to publish articles relating to any scientific issue, as long as they are backed by scientific evidence.

Good on ya, mate!

[Note: After writing this up initially but before posting it, I saw that Steve Novella has also commented on this, and said much of the same thing I did, but in more detail and with more background. Since I spent the time writing this already, I'll keep it as is, but you should go read what he wrote too!]

Bill Maher is hailed by many as a skeptic, but I disagree with that. He is an atheist, and he has some salient points to make about religion and beliefs. However, he is by no means a skeptic when it comes to matters medical. He rails against "western medicine" (what I prefer to call, simply, medicine), thinks vaccines are dangerous, and buys into a lot of nonsense about vaccinations that is known to be wrong. Note that a denier is not the same thing as a skeptic; go read what Orac has to say about Maher to see how the Real Time host misses the mark by miles in his medical beliefs.

You may also guess that I have little love for ex-Senate Majority Leader (and doctor) Bill Frist, who claimed he would never diagnose someone without seeing them first, but then proceeded to do just that on the Senate floor about Terry Schiavo (and get it completely wrong). In my opinion, he let politics trump medicine at that time.

But sometimes medicine wins out: Frist schools Maher on the swine flu on Real Time, with Frist telling Maher point blank that he’s wrong. This is worth watching.

Frist is correct, the things Maher says about vaccines are dead wrong. I wonder if Maher will now do the research instead of just continuing to buy into his flawed belief system?

Tip o’ the syringe to BABloggee Peter Beattie.

Hey look, it’s a disgusting clip of My Close Personal Friend Adam Savage™!

Adam and Jamie made this short video to raise awareness about H1N1, the swine flu. Discovery Channel also put together a nice page with a list of five myths about swine flu.

There are more myths about the swine flu, of course, especially about the vaccine for it. These myths need to be busted too, so go read what pediatrician Dr. Joe Albietz has written about it. And then ask your doctor if you should get the vaccine when it becomes available. I’ll be getting one, and so will my whole family.

One of the problems with being an ideologue who abandons reality is that it makes for very, very strange bedfellows.

For example, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — two guys who would rather soul kiss Michael Moore than be identified as lefties — have both jumped on the antivax bandwagon. Beck is spouting long-debunked paranoid antivax rhetoric, and Limbaugh is, well, he’s just being Limbaugh. He’s long planted his flag in knee-jerk anti-government silliness, never admitting that maybe, just maybe, sometimes the government is right.

I don’t know who this speaks worse for; the antivaxxers or the talk show bloviators.

In the end, though, we all lose. Because either way, this shows that nonsense doesn’t have political boundaries. Once you step off that narrow path that is reality, you’re surrounded by antireality in every direction. So it doesn’t matter if you face left or right; you’re still wrong.

If you want arguments rebutting the offal flying from the above group, go to Antiantivax, Joe Albietz’s swine flu FAQ, and Steve Novella’s antivax FAQ.

I have always felt that scientists bashing pseudoscience may be a losing game; the "other side" uses emotional arguments and logical fallacies that appeal to our less rational brains, and can sway people far better than graphs, statistics, and, let’s face it, reality.

So maybe what we need are more comedians tackling these issues, mocking them mercilessly and letting people laugh at those who think diluted water can cure all ills, and that some people have the power to predict the future while never quite seeming to be able to win the lotto.

That’s why I like David Mitchell and Dara O’Briain. They tell it like it is. And they’re really funny.

Tip o’ the jester’s cap to Rebecca.