Archive for the ‘Science and Skepticism’ Category

Also posted on That’s the Way the Banana Crumbles.

I was asked to write a post about Chiropractic. I am (obviously) not a medical professional, and so I won’t deconstruct any of the studies pointing to specific things that chiropractic can and cannot do. Instead, I’ll attempt to look at broader trends within chiropractic. Wikipedia has been used (and linked to), but for definitional purposes only.

Chiropractic is a minefield for any skeptically-minded person. On the one hand, the entire institution was founded on theories of health and disease which have been thoroughly discredited, and are obviously wrong. On the other hand, unlike faith healing or homeopathy, chiropractic involves an actual physical mechanism, which can plausibly affect the body. Regardless, the people who continue to practice chiropractic based on false beliefs and discredited theories of sickness and disease (i.e. “straights“) are dangerous, due to their lack of understanding of what they’re doing, and the inherently dangerous nature of manipulating peoples’ spinal cords.

Fortunately, amongst chiropractors, this group is slowly shrinking. The growing trend in the field of chiropractic seems to be one where genuine medical diagnoses are mixed in with vestiges of the old vitalistic belief system. These “mixers“, though not as dangerous as their “straight” counterparts, are still a few subluxations short of being medical professionals.

As with anything that can affect/be done to/be inserted into the human body, if you look hard enough, you will find claims that chiropractic can cure any disease — from headaches to cancer. However, this would be disingenuous to chiropractors, as the ones making these claims are part of a small (radical) fringe group. At the other end of the spectrum, there’s very little controversy over the studies and claims that show that chiropractic manipulation can ease lower back pain, or help treat other chronic pain-related conditions. In this way, chiropractic is somewhere between physical therapy and massage therapy in its efficacy.

So where does that leave us with chiropractic? Realistically, it’s disingenuous to talk about chiropractic as a unified organization (or profession) in the same way we might talk about neurosurgeons. There’s no unifying philosophy, standards of practice, or professional ethics that are upheld by all chiropractors.

Some who argue in defense of chiropractic might point to the developmental history of the medical profession. Medicine as it was practiced a century ago doesn’t resemble modern medicine at all. If medicine had not been given the benefit of the doubt, it never would have reached its present state, so shouldn’t we extend that benefit to chiropractic as well?

The medical sciences took thousands of years of trial and error and development to reach their present state. There was a time when the practice of medicine was based on flawed knowledge and, as a result, caused more harm than good. That being said, medicine has already evolved past this point. Thanks to things like the germ theory of disease, medicine is no longer a guessing game. That being the case, it’s hard for me to see why anybody would think it appealing to ignore this progress and practice medicine based on outmoded and flawed ways of thinking. We already have a system that works; so I don’t see the need to go back and re-iterate past mistakes.

I also think that it’s incredibly telling that the more chiropractic progresses and enters the mainstream, the more it begins to resemble modern physical therapy techniques. The fact that chiropractic seems to be honing in on real medicine as it matures seems to indicate not that it is a new way of treating disease; but merely that it is slowly converging on what medical science already knows.

Still need proof that The Star wouldn’t know decent journalism if confronted by it at an intervention? For an article about the vernal equinox, Star reporter Nick Aveling decided to ask to professionals to explain the vernal equinox. The problem? One of the two ‘professional opinions’ was that of Michael Barwick, an astrologer who is a member of such prestigious organizations as ‘Astrology Toronto’, the ‘Canadian Association for Astrological Educators’, and the ‘National Council for Geocosmic Research’. The idea that an astrologer could lend any type of useful professional opinion to a discussion of astronomy is laughable at best.

Whereas Astronomer Randy Attwood served the article well, answering the questions which the article set out to have answered, Mr. Barwick managed to make a surprisingly large ass out of himself for what is (all things considered) a relatively short interview. However, don’t take my word for it, look at the two answers to the relatively simple question: Does the fact that the equinox occurred at 7:44 a.m. have any significance?

Attwood: It’s the exact time when the sun is directly over the equator, but it’s not like you can go outside at that time and notice anything. It’s like one of those really useless sports statistics, like the number of goalies who have red hair.

A simple answer that directly answers the question in a way that even most of The Star’s readers would be able to understand.

Barwick: For sure. People could do an ingress chart, which is basically a horoscope set up for 0 degree Aries. From the basis of that, you can use it to make predictions on a variety of things including elections. But that’s not the kind of work I do.

Ignoring the fact that this answer seems to require in-depth knowledge of astrology to begin to understand (ingress charts? 0 degree Aries?), it also fails to provide anything that could even be accidentally misconstrued as an answer. As for predicting elections, we already have Halloween masks for that.

Just because the words Astronomy and Astrology are spelled similarly, it does not mean that the professions are equally valid.

As much as I respect the media’s distinction to reporting ‘both sides of a story’, reporters need to learn that the other side to science is not pseudo-science. There is plenty of controversy and debate within the scientific community to make going elsewhere for debate a non-issue. Even ignoring that, the different sides of a story are not always necessarily equally valid. Sacrificing accuracy and intellectual honesty for the perception of non-biased reporting isn’t a sacrifice that any self-respecting journalist should be willing to make.

You can read more about it on the Bad Astronomy Blog, here.

—

• The vernal equinox: Science and mysticism

Despite the slow activity over the past several months, Lintbox is back on track, and to prove it, we introduce the next panel discussion!

As the LHC became active over the fall, those opposing its activation grew louder and received considerable attention on various news outlets.  On top of this, public opinion polls found that the majority of Americans felt that the risks (though debunked) of activating the LHC far outweighed its potential benefits.  The Large Hadron Collider’s opponents argue that the possible dangers resultant of the massive particle collider’s activity, ranging from the creation of micro black holes to the catastrophic invention of the mythical “strange matter” may damage or even destroy the planet.  These arguments have been resoundingly shot down by the entire scientific community as both scientifically inaccurate and too unlikely to be even considered possible.  However, as with any debate, there remains some ground to explore. Read the rest of this entry »

Science Daily has an article talking about how researchers at Sydney’s Centenary Institute in Australia have managed to view (in real time) and film the process of a parasite infecting an immune cell. Click here to read the article, and see some photos of the process.

—

• Sciencedaily.com: Inner Workings Of The Immune System Filmed

This article by the Daily Mail online talks about a new fossil discovery that could help scientists solve a current “mystery” in the field of evolutionary biology. The discovery of fossils of turtle ancestors with partially developed shells is helping shed light on the contentious issue of how turtles first developed their shells:

This fossil supports existing theories of the development of the shells being the result of an extension of the backbone and ribs, as opposed to a hardening of the outer layers of the turtle’s skin. Interestingly, this historical evolutionary development seems to match the individual development that we observe happening in turtle embryos and hatchlings. The fossil’s fully developed lower shell also suggests that turtle ancestors developed in an environment where they had to fend off predators from below, thus reinforcing the notion that they developed as aquatic animals.

Of course, fossil evidence of turtles with imperfectly formed shells is also proof against the notion of Intelligent Design… but that’s neither here nor there.

—

• dailymail.co.uk: Scientists solve evolutionary puzzle on how the turtle got its shell

I would highly recommend coming out to this event if you’re in the area. It only costs $5 for students if you pre-order or your tickets. More information can be found below:

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s always refreshing when the journalists actually get science news right. Regarding the Large Hadron Collider:

But there has been a struggle to explain to the public that, though this energy is vast from the perspective of a circulating proton, each collision between a pair of protons will release an amount of energy comparable to that of two colliding mosquitoes.

What next — the Vatican comes out in support of evolution? Madness!

—

• Telegraph.co.uk: Large Hadron Collider: could it defrost a pizza?
• msnbc.com: Vatican: Guess what, Darwin? Evolution is OK

Found on this website, “Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution” is meant to be a handy guide for students skeptical of evolution. According to this article at The New York Times, science teachers in the US are increasingly having to deal with similar anti-evolution ploys. Reading through the list gave me a few chuckles, so I thought — with only my knowledge from high school biology — I would go through the list and do my best to respond to the various challenges.

—

1. ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

It appears to be a favorite tactic of anti-evolutionists to try to tie evolutionary biology with the question of the origins of life. The truth is, biological evolution, natural selection, and common ancestry don’t say anything about how life began. Life could have started any number of ways; evolution is merely the proposed mechanism to explain the diversity and robustness of modern life.

That being said, we aren’t completely in the dark as to how life on Earth began. Unfortunately, we may never be able to prove how life on Earth began, but rather only likely ways that it could have began. While there is some controversy as to whether the Miller-Urey experiment replicated the atmospheric conditions of early Earth¹, it did show us the possibility of creating the building blocks of organic life from non-living materials. In that respect, it is still an important experiment, with implications for our search for the origin of life.

Regardless, this is not a criticism of evolution — it’s a criticism of the Miller-Urey experiment.
Read the rest of this entry »

In what is certifiably a rare occurrence, I’ve found myself reasonably impressed by the skepticism found in a special news article.  Specifically, by the piece 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which aired on CBC Newsworld this week.

The hour-long program focuses on perhaps the largest foundation of the 9/11 “Truthers’” conspiracy theory, the collapse of WTC7.  In it, while true douchebags like Dylan Avery of Loose Change are given time to have their say, it’s the engineers, firefighters and the families of the victims who have the final word.  What’s more, the program makes no hesitation to refute conspiracy theory claims surrounding the collapse of the third tower with real science, reason, and at times just plain common sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Truthers’ nonsense, the meat of the 9/11 conspiracy theory surrounds the collapse of WTC7, which they say is a “smoking gun” for the government’s supposed involvement in the attacks, as it had not appeared to have sustained significant damage and must therefore have been destroyed in a controlled demolition through the use of explosives.  The program’s response to this argument, based on official research into the collapse of the tower, leaves no stone unturned, as it picks apart every conspiracy theory claim neatly thoroughly.

First and foremost, the argument that WTC7 suffered no damage prior to its collapse is debunked by foorage from all angles of broken windows as well as fire and smoke pluming from all sides.  On the claim that the fire left raging in the building could not be hot enough to melt the steel foundations of the structure, a team of engineers explain that the melting of the steel isn’t necessary to produce a collapse.  Instead, the steel needs merely to be weakened by the intense temperatures of the fire to the point where it can no longer support the weight of the structure (This is accomplished long before the steel is at its melting point).  Conspiracy theorists even argue that the sight and sound of the building’s collapse indicate that explosives were present in the building to initiated its destruction.  The program offers two explanations for this.

One is practical:  Those “hearing” and “seeing” explosions have little to no experience on what real-life explosions sound and look like, and thus cannot be relied on to provide a realistic assessment.  The other explanation is more technical.  The “explosion” seen by observers is itself a result of the collapse.  As the structure’s foundations fails and it begins to collapse, air within the building is trapped, much like in a balloon.  The pressure builds until the air is finally able to escape, which it does very violently.  Indeed, this may be called an explosion, but not as a result of explosives.  It is, rather, a result of the physics of the building’s collapse, and nothing more.

We here at Lintbox have yet to write an extensive piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which we should sometime in the future (at the risk of facing the often very harsh responses from Truthers.)  Nevertheless, CBC/BBC managed to produce one very satisfying, scientific approach to the conspiracy theory, and for that I’m left impressed.  Maybe there’s hope for the media, after all!

As revealed in a previous post, we’ve recently implemented some fairly large additions to Lintbox and its direction.  Many may have noticed the newly-added Special Features section, wherein we will occasionally bring you a variety of special content.  Among these is the Panel Discussion, a biweekly compendium where the Lintbox staff and contributors alike may have their say on a singular topic of note.  This week’s topic is NHPs, or “Natural Health Products,” and the nature of the basic human freedom to consume what one chooses to.

March 2008 in Canada was met with controversy when an amendment entitled Bill C-51 was introduced by Canadian Parliament in an effort to improve the efficacy of the long-obsolete Food and Drugs Act.  The bill, though more of a compliment to the act than a modification, was met with a strong public outcry orchestrated by the website Stop C-51, a purported grassroots organization that claimed C-51 would implement draconian restrictions on natural health products and result in a proverbial police state.  The website was revealed to have been a front for Truehope Nutritional Support Ltd., an NHP company sued by the government for selling multi-vitamins as a treatment for bipolar disorder without a license. Read the rest of this entry »