Pseudoscience

[Turtle]

§ hollow earth theory
§ hydrogen earth-core theory
§ hydroplate theory
§ Urantia Book
§ expanding earth theory
§ face on Mars
§ hyperdimensional theory (see Richard Hoagland)
§ evp's
§ chemtrails

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Turtle

§ hollow earth theory
§ hydroplate theory
§ Urantia Book
§ expanding earth theory
§ face on Mars
§ hyperdimensional theory (see Richard Hoagland)
§ evp's
§ chemtrails

Some of those are new to me. Would you care to elaborate on any or all of them?

Thanks.

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

What other good results of bad science can people come up with?

Sloppily, leaving your Petri dish uncovered near an open window?
--------------------
Christianity
Islam
Judaism
God
gods
angels
saints
purgatory
hell
engineers
intelligence
Da Vinci Code
Papal infallibility
Only men can be priests (god said?)
heaven
the creator of this amazing universe, also sat down and wrote (inspired?) the dog's dinner called the bible.
reincarnation
raising people from the dead
ghosts
The end of the word is _ _ _ (fill in the blank)
The end of the world will be caused by _ _ _ (fill in the blank)
The the of the world was predicted by __ _ _ (fill in the blank)
plastic plants

[lemit]

Oh my god! (so to speak) As with Turtle, would you care to elaborate? That's what will make this thread educational.

Also, would anybody like to tackle the question of how we can recognize pseudoscience when we encounter it in everyday life? In other words, what are the everyday solutions to an everyday problem?

Thanks.

--lemit

[Galapagos]

This video about pseudoscience is entertaining, educational and FREE! I think it would be suitable for intelligent youngsters too, for any of you with kids:

YouTube - Here Be Dragons - Critical analysis of...

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by lemit

Some of those are new to me. Would you care to elaborate on any or all of them?

Thanks.

--lemit

I guess I care to...a little anyway. I mean I'll write on any topic, and have written on these, but I have that nagging suspicion that discussing them promotes them and keeps them alive in a twisted sort of way. Nonetheless, request granted.

I'll start with Urantia as I imagine it's one you haven't heard of, and if you could pop in and tell me the others you haven't heard of so's I can get to them first.

So thens, The Urantia Book purports to come from angels and explain the science of Earth, the cosmos & spiritualy. Written in the early 1900's by a fella named William Sadler and some of his friends in order to join religion to science, it is today continuing to be promoted and translated into other languages other than the English the angels first writ it in.

Fortunately my writing on it is here at good ol' Hypography.

Urantia Book - Who Could've Hoaxed This?

Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

This video about pseudoscience is entertaining, educational and FREE! I think it would be suitable for intelligent youngsters too, for any of you with kids:

YouTube - Here Be Dragons - Critical analysis of pseudoscience 1of5

I was only able to see the first 4 minutes of the 1st part. It locks up for some reason.

I'm not sure if it's explained later in the film, but some of the products they were showing as "dragons" didn't make any sense. For example, how is organic ketchup a "dragon?

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I was only able to see the first 4 minutes of the 1st part. It locks up for some reason.

I'm not sure if it's explained later in the film, but some of the products they were showing as "dragons" didn't make any sense. For example, how is organic ketchup a "dragon?

Later on he states that he isn't making any claims about the validity of the products under discussion, only that there isn't any scientific data supporting their purported effects.
If I understood correctly, then his point was that there is no empirical reason to believe organic ketchup is any better for you than other kinds of ketchup.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

Later on he states that he isn't making any claims about the validity of the products under discussion, only that there isn't any scientific data supporting their purported effects.
If I understood correctly, then his point was that there is no empirical reason to believe organic ketchup is any better for you than other kinds of ketchup.

If the organic ketchup bottle is making the claim that it is better for you than regular ketchup, then he might have a point. But, we know that pesticides are bad for the body. We know that organic food is grown without pesticides. So it stands to reason that organic ketchup would be better for your health (at least in that aspect, it might have twice the sugar or whatever for all I know).

Another product shown was St. John's Wort, which most people take for depression. This has been scientifically confirmed:

The chemical composition of St. John's wort has been well-studied. Documented pharmacological activities, including antidepressant, antiviral, and antibacterial effects, provide supporting evidence for several of the traditional uses stated for St John's wort...Evidence from randomised controlled trials has confirmed the efficacy of St John's wort extracts over placebo in the treatment of mild-to-moderately severe depression. Other randomised controlled studies have provided some evidence that St John's wort extracts are as effective as some standard antidepressants in mild-to-moderate depression.

St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) : a review of its chemistry, pharmacology and clinical properties

This leads me to the conclusion that the makers of the film are either unaware of such supporting knowledge or, worse, have a bias towards any form of alternative medicine. Just because health food stores carry some whacky pseudoscience stuff does not mean that it is all pseudoscientific.

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by freeztar

...
This leads me to the conclusion that the makers of the film are either unaware of such supporting knowledge or, worse, have a bias towards any form of alternative medicine. Just because health food stores carry some whacky pseudoscience stuff does not mean that it is all pseudoscientific.

Yes, there appears to be some confusion about some of the other items in the first part(omega 3 fatty acids) on the youtube comments section as well.
I also perused the article posted and more I found referenced on the St. Johns Wort wiki page and it would appear that it is valid for medical use.
I suppose I will retract my recommendation of the video(or at least caution viewers), but kind of strange, the rest of it is quite good!


Edit*******- I just went to Dunning's website(www.skeptoid.com) and performed a few searches. Firstly, he states in a podcast that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial supplements, but that pseudoscientific claims beyond the legitimate medical ones are often made:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4114
Fish oil is a great source of omega-3 fatty acids, and these have been shown many times to have certain cardiovascular benefits. The American Heart Association recommends that you eat fish at least twice a week.

Where the pseudoscience invades is in the area of supplementation — basically fish oil pills. Generally speaking, healthy people gain no benefit from supplementation; taking pills when you don't need them amounts to what doctors call a "wallet extraction". However when you do have documented coronary heart disease or otherwise need to lower your triglycerides, your doctor may well recommend that you take supplements, along with whatever fish you might already eat, to reach a desired amount of daily intake, usually between 1000 and 4000 mg depending on your condition. Omega-3 fatty acids do carry risks such as blood thinning, so don't take it if you don't need it. Bottom line: If you're healthy, save your money, and enjoy a fish dinner now and then.

Omega-3 fatty acids and fish oil are often trumpeted as treatments for many other conditions, such as asthma, cancer, or as some kind of wonder food for the brain, but such claims as these have so far been found to be completely without merit.

Perhaps the reference to St. John's Wort is the same in that there was a valid point, but it was not made clear. There is also a shot of a yoga parlor, which might be confusing because isometric hold exercises surely burn calories and are good for you, but there are a lot of other mystical and pseudoscientific claims made about it.

As for the organic foods, I searched and found his position in another podcast transcription:

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4019#
The National Review reports that Americans believe organic food is healthier by a 2-1 margin, despite the lack of any evidence supporting this. When you take the exact same strain of a plant and grow it in two different ways, its chemical and genetic makeup remain the same. One may be larger than the other if one growing method was more efficient, but its fundamental makeup and biochemical content is defined by its genes, not by the way it was grown. Consumer Reports found no consistent difference in appearance, flavor, or texture. A blanket statement like "organic cultivation results in a crop with superior nutritional value" has no logical or factual basis.

Some supporters of organic growing claim that the danger of non-organic food lies in the residues of chemical pesticides. This claim is even more ridiculous: Since the organic pesticides and fungicides are less efficient than their modern synthetic counterparts, up to seven times as much of it must be used. Organic pesticides include rotenone, which has been shown to cause the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and is a natural poison used in hunting by some native tribes; pyrethrum, which is carcinogenic; sabadilla, which is highly toxic to honeybees; and fermented urine, which I don't want on my food whether it causes any diseases or not. Supporters of organics claim that the much larger amounts of chemicals they use is OK because those chemicals are all-natural. But just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's safe or healthy — consider the examples of hemlock, mercury, lead, toadstools, box jellyfish neurotoxin, asbestos — not to mention a nearly infinite number of toxic bacteria and viruses (E. coli, salmonella, bubonic plague, smallpox). When you hear any product claim to be healthy because its ingredients are all natural, be skeptical. By no definition can "all natural" mean that a product is healthful.

After looking through his site, I'm willing to give Dunning the benefit of the doubt and tentatively conclude that the problem with the video was clarity and not accuracy or bias.