Anti-Quackery & Science Blog
The problem with Skepticism
I just discover this blog via an article about fluoridation and the lack of danger thereof (see http://amr2you.blogspot.com/2005...e-cleared.html)
. After reading the article, I browsed through the blog to see what it was about.
The result: frustration.
Why?
Because a lot of things I have read show what can be wrong with skepticism (maybe I should say skeptics). We have to be prudent: while discernment is always a good thing we have to be careful that skepticism doesn't become an ideology in itself.
First of all, what is skepticism? If it is about having a critical mind when dealing with the world, this is ok. But if it is about shunning what is considered unorthodox then this is pure ideology and we place ourselves in the same position as the people or the theories we critic.
The problem with a lot of skeptics is that they clothe themselves with the mantle of Science and Reason and, by this, give themselves a reputation of respectability and wisdom, even when their logic is faulty.
Contrary to what some people believe, science is not always about altruism and absolute search for truth. It is also about ideology, politics, career, money and passion. For example, we all know that the space program to reach the moon was as much (some would say more) about beating the soviets as for anything else.
So what is skepticism all about today? Is this just a crusade in disguise by people with preconceived ideas about what is true or not true, trying to purge the world of the "weird" people/theories? Or is this about adopting a healthy attitude, a stance for the truth (whatever it is) because knowledge is too valuable to be kept hostage by some "misguided" people?
I am sure that every skeptic would consider himself or herself honest but according to what I have seen in this blog (and elsewhere) it is obvious that some ideas/theories have already been judged once for all as heresies by definition. For example, let's consider the post entitled "Conspiracy theories and fighting them" (http://amr2you.blogspot.com/2005/02/conspiracy-
theories-and-fighting-them.html). Just the title says it all: conspiracy theories have to be fought against. It is not about knowing which conspiracy theory is correct or not, or if there has been one correct conspiracy theory in history or not. No, the key expression is "fighting them". Just like that, almost by definition.
Now I would like to know why.
Is this because they have all been proven wrong? Or is it that a lot of skeptics have preconceived ideas (or ideologies) that conspiracy theories are automatically false?
First of all, here is the definition of conspiracy from the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (www.dictionary.com)
conspiracy: n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act 2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot) 3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose
We know that conspiracies do exist. Just consider all the big scandals of these last years like Enron, Worldcom or Tyco. Among the charges brought again them by the Justice Department was conspiracy. And in the political world, there are also cases of conspiracy (for example, the former San Carlos Mayor Michael King in California was found guilty of conspiracy. Tom Delay was also accused of conspiracy in a court in Texas (even if the charge was dismissed in appeal). And of course, we all remember the 9/11 events or the bombing of the Oklahoma city FBI building by Timothy McVey). In fact, if you check the news online and type in the word "conspiracy" in the search field, you will get pages and pages of cases where people have been indicted and convicted of conspiracy by the justice system. Not all the cases were easy to prove, because some defendants had a lot of resources, good lawyers and/or political influence (like Tom Delay for example).
Now, what about the government? Is it engaged in conspiracies too? If we consider the definition of conspiracy given above, we can say that there are clear and proven evidences. For example, let's consider the coup in Chile where the democratically elected president Salvador Allende was overthrown and replaced by Pinochet in 1970... with the help of the US government. The involvement of the government had always been denied and was considered another conspiracy theory. Until some documents were declassified (thanks to the Freedom Information Act, if I don't make a mistake). Here are some lines issued in the news when the documents were published:
"Such theories were unsupported for many years, but CIA papers declassified in 1999 show the US spy agency spent millions of dollars on measures to destabilise Allende's government and that Nixon and Kissinger were among Pinochet's supporters. Subsequent administrations have failed to acknowledge the US role in the coup. Former president Bill Clinton came close in November 2000 with a statement which said in part: "Actions approved by the US Government during this period [1970-73] aggravated political polarisation and affected Chile's long tradition of democratic elections and respect for constitutional order and the rule of law." In February this year, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said the US was "not proud" of its role in the coup." (from article "Memories of a murdered country" - Fairfax Digital - September 11, 2003)
Here are some others:
"A Tale of Two Septembers
By David Morris, AlterNet - September 9, 2003
September 11th marks the second anniversary of the aerial attack by terrorists that killed 2,700 people and profoundly changed American society.
September 11th also marks the anniversary, in this case the thirtieth, of the aerial attack by terrorists that led to the murder of more than 3,000 people and profoundly changed Chilean society.
American commentators probably won't mention the 1973 attacks on Chile and their aftermath. They should, because in those attacks it was the U.S. government that played the role of Al Qaeda – recruiting, training, arming, financing and coordinating the terrorists.
Our involvement in this unsavory affair is now widely recognized. As Secretary of State Colin Powell himself recently acknowledged, "It is not a part of our country's history that we are proud of."
Powell's comment implies a feeling of contrition that I doubt his colleagues in this Administration share. For the ties are remarkably intimate between those who planned the attacks on Chile's White House and those in charge of responding to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld worked in the Nixon cabinet)" (from AlterNet)
The case of Salvador Allende in Chile alone shows that the government has been involved in conspiracies. And it proves also that not all conspiracy theories are crazy.
But I have another example, more recent. Let's consider the case of the Energy Task Force of the White House. Nobody knows what happened during their meetings (where some Enron's top officials were invited) in spite of the fact that a federal judge ordered the White House to make the documents public (because of concerns raised by some government watchdog groups like Judicial Watch or the environmental group The Sierra Club that the bill in preparation was too favorable to the energy business). To this day, the White House has refused to make the documents public and has refused to say who were the people at these meetings. This case has almost all the aspects of a government conspiracy. It involves people from the White House (the Vice-President, no less) meeting with mysterious people (we don't know who they are, except for the fact that some Enron people were there) to speak about subjects kept confidential (apart the fact they were Energy Task Force meetings, we still don't know what they spoke about). And since no document has been made public, we don't know if illegal/criminal acts have been committed or not (for those who think it is a little bit far fetched, I'd like to remind them that some Enron officials are being trialed right now and it is not for having stolen some candies. And for those who think White House officials cannot do illegal acts... well, I will just mention a few names: Watergate, Irangate,Monica Lewinsky case,Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame's name leak case).
Well, of course, the examples mentionned above are far from being as mysterious and exotic as in the X-Files but they show that government conspiracies exist. And if the government can behave in such ways for "ordinary" matters why not for "extraordinary" matters, like UFOs for example. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that UFOs exist (though I think there are definitely things seen by a lot of people that cannot be accounted as just weather balloon or clouds with strange shapes). I am just saying that, if they do, we cannot count on the government (or any government on earth for that matter) to reveal their existence (for national security and strategic reasons for example).
Now, what should be the proper behavior of a skeptic when coming across a "weird" theory? Certainly not derision and mockery. Because most people who believe in strange theories are sincere and they deserve to be respected. I think the first attitude to adopt is cautiousness, for 2 reasons. First, because when something is new, it is possible to make mistake. Second, because we have to remember that novelty doesn't mean heresy. In the history of Sciences, we have often seen cases where researchers were wrongly accused, ridiculed, vilified and condemned because their views dared to differ from the common wisdom of the day. Galileo Galilei, Alfred Vegener (continental drift), Louis Pasteur, Fred Hoyle (who coined th
The problem with skepticism (part 2)
(This is the following and the end of the previous comment which has been truncated because it was too long)
Fred Hoyle (who coined the "Big Bang" expression) all of them have been (or still are) the underdogs in their times. Even Albert Einstein was put in a closet toward the end of his life because of his dissents against Quantum physics. So we have to remember that jumping to conclusion can be very detrimental and also a proof of our crude ignorance. Think about it, what would be the world without people like geniuses like Abel, Galois, Feynman or again Einstein? All these people were able to think out of the box. So it is not surprising that only a few people would understand them at first (though I don't think Feynman had any difficulty to make himself understood as he was exceptional at presenting physics).
In the case of fluoridation (since I started with that), when I read in the post I mentionned at the beginning that countless studies have cleared fluoridation beyond doubt, it is my turn to be skeptic (I hope that I will not be considered as someone giving in conspiracy theories). Beyond doubt? Not really. I went on the CDC website (www.cdc.gov) and made some research on the subject. I found this interesting report (http://www.health.gov/environment/
ReviewofFluoride/default.htm). While it says that numerous studies failed to show any relationship between fluoride and cancer development for example, the report also says in its conclusion that "By comparison with the 1940's, the total prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased in non-fluoridated areas and may have increased in optimally fluoridated areas. Such increases in dental fluorosis in a population signify that total fluoride exposures have increased and may be more than are necessary to prevent dental caries. For this reason, prudent public health practice dictates the reduction of unnecessary and inappropriate fluoride exposure" and also "In the 1940s, drinking water and food were the major sources of fluoride exposure. Since then, additional sources of fluoride have become available through the introduction of fluoride containing dental products. Although the use of these products is likely responsible for some of the declines in caries scores, the inappropriate use of these products has also likely contributed to the observed increases in the prevalence of very mild and mild forms of dental fluorosis". The report goes on to say that "further epidemiological studies are required to determine whether or not an association exists between various levels of fluoride in drinking water and bone fractures" and that "Genotoxicity studies of fluoride, which are highly dependent on the methods used, often show contradictory findings. The most consistent finding is that fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in standard tests in bacteria (Ames Test). In some studies with different methodologies, fluoride has been reported to induce mutations and chromosome aberrations in cultured rodent and human cells. The genotoxicity of fluoride in humans and animals is unresolved despite numerous studies" and that "The effects of fluoride on the reproductive system merit further investigation in animal and human studies". When you read the conclusions of this report and the research recommendations on the risks of fluoridation, you come to the realization that there are still a lot of questions raised by the scientific community and that it is not being unreasonable to try to increase the awareness of the public about this issue. You come also to the realization that the person who wrote that post (Jason Armfield) was not altogether honest when he said there was no doubt and I think it was offensive of him to try to associate those voicing their concerns with those believing in UFOs or that Elvis is still alive. Contrary to what he said, those raising their voice are those who refuse to believe without questioning and many among them are researchers, physicians and journalists (and maybe, a few "nutcases" who believe in conspiracy theories. So what?)
Skeptics have a very important role to play because they can be the safeguard against obscurantism, superstition, fanatism, error and manipulation. But at the same time they don't want to adopt a position of supreme judges. Because a skeptic doesn't have a absolute knowledge, he needs to be humble if he doesn't want to become arrogant. A skeptic is someone who knows that there are often more questions than answers and that we, human beings, are bent to make mistakes (making mistakes is not a problem. It is the way sciences progress. Covering them is the issue). He should not say "Don't go there!" even if the subject seems esoteric, mystical or not scientific (after all, the Hittites or the city of Nineveh whose mentions were only found in the Bible at first were supposed to be myths... until archeological proofs were found) but rather "Be careful! Be slow to speak! Prove it or show me! I need to see more before drawing a conclusion!"
Or maybe simply "Hmmm!".
I am a reciprocal link 
"The universe is incredibly wondrous, incredibly beautiful, and it fills me with a sense that there is some underlying explanation that we have yet to fully understand," he said. "If someone wants to place the word God on those collections of words, it's OK with me."
"You come also to the realization that the person who wrote that post (Jason Armfield) was not altogether honest when he said there was no doubt and I think it was offensive of him to try to associate those voicing their concerns with those believing in UFOs or that Elvis is still alive."
Then you truly do *not* understand the meaning of skepticism as you claim in your lengthy response above. Just because there are no indicators to warrant "doubt" regarding the safety of flouride in drinking water doesn't mean that further study and research isn't a good idea. The author was spot on in both statements that 1) flouride appears safe according to all available literature and there is nothing that is substatiated to show that flouride is harmful; and 2) further study and research is meritted, if for no other reason than to exclude these as cause for worry.
But literature *does* exist that supports the authors assertions -and good literature at that.
A study conducted in England concluded "there is no evidence that fluoridation has had any influence on the rate of congenital abnormalities or stillbirths in the north east of England. Our study adds to the available evidence on fluoridation" (Lowry & Rankin 2003). This study was conducted in response to the unfounded accusations that such correlations existed and that flouridation was the cause.
The study cited other literature which also found little evidence of adverse effects of water flouridation:
McDonagh M, Whiting P, Wilson P, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation BMJ 2000;321 :855-9.
Whiting P, McDonagh M, Kleijnen J. Association of Down's syndrome and water fluoride level: a systematic review of the evidence. BMC Public Health 2001;1:6.
It would seem that the bugaboo about flouridation and its dangers are conspiracy theorist rhetoric and nothing more than alarmist hyperbole.
On that note, I find the difference between "conspiracy theories" and "criminal conspiracies" to be grey at times, but different nonetheless. The latter is revealed with tangible and testable evidence. The former is generally hyperbole and rhetoric that exists in spite of such evidence. The 9/11 conspiracy theories that the U.S. detonated bombs in the buildings and that actual planes weren't flown into them are good examples; the sound-stage Moon landing is another. Good evidence exists to the contrary in both examples: video of planes impacting buildings; loss of life of passengers that boarded the planes; physics of combustion & architecture; rocks from the Moon; etc.
The conspiracy theory that involves the fear surrounding flouridation falls in this category. There is good evidence that flouridation has a net positive effect on societies that employ it and no evidence that there is any net negative effects. Correlations between cancers, birth defects, etc are all unfounded. The flouride nay-sayers fall into the very same trap that UFO nutters and Elvis-is-alive believers are victim of: belief without evidence and gullibility.
Fascinating stuff here - where do you hold your meetings? I will be in NYC in September.
The problem with Skepticism - Response to cfeagans
Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate that you took the time to read what I wrote (I didn't intend to be that long, but sometimes one surprises oneself).
You said that I didn't understand the meaning of skepticism (though you didn't tell me what it is supposed to be) because of what I said about fluoridation. It seems that you didn't pay attention to everything I said or that you didn't pay a visit to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) website before saying that there is "no evidence that there is any net negative effects. Correlations between cancers, birth defects, etc are all unfounded. The flouride nay-sayers fall into the very same trap that UFO nutters and Elvis-is-alive believers are victim of: belief without evidence and gullibility.". I mentioned some of the CDC findings in my comments stating the increase of dental fluorosis since the 1940's and also their own statements that in some "studies with different methodologies, fluoride has been reported to induce mutations and chromosome aberrations in cultured rodent and human cells".
So, while there are studies showing that there is no danger with fluoride, there are others showing that it is not so harmless as some people think.
But don't forget that my point was not about fluoridation per se. It was more about the attitude that some skeptics were demonstrating, the lack of respect or the contempt that they were showing sometimes. I wanted to show that in Science or other disciplines, we have to be cautious and not judge other people to be nutcases just because of the strangeness of what they say. This is why I gave the example of the coup in Chile and the involvement of the US government. For years, many people said it was just another conspiracy theory until declassified documents showed that it was true. Of course, those who made these allegations at the first place didn't have any evidence (other than witnesses) and for a good reason: everything was kept secret by the government. But evidence or not, the case was true and not just a crazy conspiracy theory.
This is why we have to show some respect to people even if we don't believe in or don't agree with what they say. And this is why we have to be prudent and slow to judge. Because unless we can unequivocally disprove a claim we can never be sure that it will not be proven true later.
As for other conspiracy theories like 9/11 or about the Moon landing, it is interesting to notice that those who believe in them often present arguments that are not always explained. For example, why did Building 7 (the 3rd building to crumble during the 9/11 attacks) collapse while it is was not hit by any plane? Why did the Ben Laden family and other people from the UAE were allowed to leave the country just a few hours after the attacks when all the planes of country were stuck to the ground and when several hijackers came from the UAE?
As for the moon landing, they have interesting questions too. For example, why are the crosshair at the wrong position on some pictures? Why are some shadows not oriented in the right position?
Now, maybe all these questions have perfectly reasonable answers (or maybe not) but just dismissing them as unimportant will not satisfy the curioosity of the people, above all in a country where people mistrust the government so much.
Don't forget that dismissing is not proving.
Researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal (BMJ) indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)
Cavity rates declined equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated European countries over three decades. “This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt,” write Sir Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library, which was set up to help people understand the evidence base of medicine, KK Cheng, professor of epidemiology at Birmingham University, and Trevor Sheldon, professor and pro-vice-chancellor at York University.
In 1999, England’s Department of Health commissioned a systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation on dental health and to look for evidence of harm. (York Review). The reviewers were surprised that fluoridation was long endorsed and promoted with such certainty when 3200 world-wide papers failed to show any good quality evidence of benefit or safety. “Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor,” the BMJ’s researchers write.
Sheldon, who was Chair of the York Review’s advisory committee, as well as co-author of the BMJ article, wrote in a different 2006 report that officials promoting fluoridation may have misrepresented the York Review findings to suit “prior beliefs and policy intent.” (2)
Discussing the ethics of informed consent, the BMJ researchers write, “This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit.” Further, they write “In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation,” they write.
Many fluoridation supporters “used the York review’s findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favor of fluoridation,” they write.
Similar problems exist in the U.S. as outlined in the summer 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. “Artificial fluoridation of drinking water… probably does not reduce tooth decay…Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data,” writes JM Kauffman, PhD. (3)
On October 2, 2007,Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation, 61% to 39%, despite the American Dental Association’s $150,000 funded political campaign to return fluoride into Juneau’s water supply after the Juneau legislative body voted it out in November 2006.
Topanga, California residents are fighting to keep their water fluoride-free. (4) But their County Supervisor won’t even meet with them to hear their concerns (5) as of October 8, 2007.
Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network says “The BMJ article fails to mention the 2006 National Research Council fluoride review, the most comprehensive overview of the toxicology of fluoride ever written. The crucial message of the NRC’s report is that the highest scientific authority in the US has determined that low levels of fluoride in drinking water may have serious adverse health effects," says Connett. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath about why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” says Connett.
Paul Beeber, President and General Counsel, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, says “This British Medical Journal article lends further credence to our efforts to end fluoridation and have Congressional hearings held in the US concerning the ongoing government goal to fluoridate more water supplies without individual consent and without any valid evidence of its safety or effectiveness.”
An online petition to end fluoridation and call for a Congressional hearing is here http://FluorideAction.Net
Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies which winds up in virtually 100% of the food supply. The Centers for Disease Control tells us that many US school children are over fluoridated, with up to 51% sporting dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted enamel. Yet cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation – toddlers.
For example, a New York State TV station reported on October 8, 2007 that in Rochester, NY, fluoridated for decades, “40 percent of 162 toddlers [examined] were suffering from baby bottle tooth decay. Most averaged two cavities; some as many as 20…The cost to one community can be as much as $1 million annually to treat children with this oral disease, a tab picked up almost completely by Medicaid…reasons…Many pediatric dentists won’t care for patients as young as one or two and they often won’t accept Medicaid.” (6)
Dentists often pat themselves on the back while claiming they are the only profession willing to put themselves out of business by forcing fluoridation onto the American public. That's hardly the case as the New York Times reports it's a boom time for dentists; but not for teeth. "With dentists’ fees rising far faster than inflation and more than 100 million people lacking dental insurance, the percentage of Americans with untreated cavities began rising this decade, reversing a half-century trend of improvement in dental health," according to the NY Times (7)
"Dentists’ incomes have grown faster than that of the typical American and the incomes of medical doctors. Formerly poor relations to physicians, American dentists in general practice made an average salary of $185,000 in 2004, the most recent data available. That figure is similar to what non-specialist doctors make, but dentists work far fewer hours. Dental surgeons and orthodontists average more than $300,000 annually," reports the New York Times.
(7)
We both feel the story of the difficult between us, and do not know where to write. Your eyes, you are unwittingly care of the total came in front of my eyes, I want to say now love you I complaint or regret, LOTRO Gold, you are my most love, if only a feeling that my heart still beat.
You can brush GuildWars money, and give others unimportant things, be good for yours!
Of course, you can buy cheap GW gold, because it used to your equip and energy! When you fight again, you will use different equips! And then, you will find more interesting! And more energy injects your bodies! If you like, you can join them!
You can buy Angels Online gold for your lover, you will feeling very happy!
If you have more cheap Angels Online gold, you can sell to others.
cheap knight gold is the key to our home.
If you have little money, I think cheap warhammer Online gold also can help you.
Rolex Sea Dweller watches and replica Rolex Sea Dweller watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
good
very goo
If you have Archlord gold , Archlord money and archlord online Gold...You will experience a better life of the game!what are you waiting for?
Thanks for that! rolex watch
The problem with skepticism
luxury watch
When W[url=http://www.storeingame.com/]WOW Gold[/url] enter the fortress, you will face a large number of [url=http://www.storeingame.com/Metin2-Yang/]
Metin2 Yang[/url] who are ordered to expel the [url=http://www.storeingame.com/Buy-Aion-Gold/]
Aion Gold[/url] in Icecrown. The defensive operations commander is the lord Marrowgar who is a [url=http://www.storeingame.com/Buy-Aion-Gold/]
Aion Kinah[/url] combined by many undead and bones. Then you will encounter Death [url=http://www.2joygame.com/]Cheap WOW Gold[/url], the lord of [url=http://www.brothergame.com/]Metin2 Yang[/url]. She maintains the faith of the followers by promising they will get a [url=http://www.shinywowgold.com/]Buy WOW Gold[/url] if they have the opportunity to live.
Commenting by HaloScan
