Debunking Denialism

Defending science against the forces of irrationality.

Truehope Threatens Critic Natasha Tracy with Frivolous Lawsuit

Natasha Tracy

Natasha Tracy is an award-winning mental health writers. She tested and critically evaluated an alternative medicine product called EMPowerplus Advanced during a time period she was suicidal and out of evidence-based options. Turns out that EMPowerplus Advanced is just a mixture of minerals and vitamins, amino acids and antioxidants. They claim that it can replace psychiatric medication and that they have over two dozens scientific papers published showing that it is effective. In reality, most of those are either case reports written by clinicians who believe in the product or plagued by lacking controls, having massive dropouts, being open label, having non-random self-selected samples or relying on self-reporting treatment effects.

Tracy wrote a few critical blog posts about the product and the company (called Truehope Nutritional Support) behind it in late 2013. A few days ago, The Synergy Group of Canada sent her a letter threatening with a lawsuit (webcite) for “slander/defamation” unless she removes all of her critical writings and issue a public apology within a week. In other words, an alternative medicine company that sells a “treatment” (against a variety of psychiatric conditions) that does not appear to be supported by solid scientific evidence has now attempted to silence a leading critic by threatening with legal action. This, of course, is known as a “strategic lawsuit against public participation” or a SLAPP lawsuit.

Truehope and the Synergy Group thought they could bully a mental health writer who criticized their alternative “treatment” into silence by threatening her with a lawsuit. They were wrong. Debunking Denialism supports Natasha Tracy’s freedom to critically investigate and write down her thoughts and arguments for all to see. Debunking Denialism reject the intellectually dishonest and cowardly SLAPP tactic. Perhaps unwittingly, Truehope and the Synergy Group has now made sure that the skeptical spotlight will exposing their dirty laundry.

Read more of this post

Does Naomi Oreskes Harbor Anti-GMO Sentiments?

Oreskes and evidence

Naomi Oreskes is a historian of science and currently the Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. In the context of scientific skepticism, she is one of the most important and hard-hitting defenders of climate science against ignorant and misguided attack by climate change denialists. She has written a persuasive essay in the prestigious scientific journal Science detailing the solid scientific consensus that most of the observed warming in the last couple of decades is due to human activities. Together with historian Erik M. Conway, she co-wrote the fantastic book called Merchants of Doubt which exposed the tobacco and climate change denialist industry and their deceptive methods. A recent New York Times portrait of Oreskes called her “a lightning rod in a changing climate”, which could not be a more apt description.

However, dark clouds appear on the horizon. There is a tendency among public intellectuals who are entirely reasonable in some areas to descend into the promotion of pseudoscience is others. The phenomenon is most commonly know among Nobel Prize winners, such as Nikolaas Tinbergen (autism quackery), Kary Mullis (climate change denialism, astrology, HIV/AIDS denialism), Linus Pauling (cancer quackery), but can readily be generalized to the broader community of researchers. This is terribly unfortunate, because they lend their intellectual credibility and academic achievements to pseudoscientific nonsense and causes real harm to science.

For Oreskes, this appears to be genetically modified foods. Fortunately, she has not yet gone so far astray as to be completely shipwrecked in the vicious marshlands of anti-GM pseudoscience so there may still be some hope. This post reviews and comments on three separate cases of anti-GM sentiments expressed by Oreskes. It finishes off by highlighting the intellectual responsibility of public intellectuals.

Read more of this post

Unraveling Pathetic Bleach Apologetics

CD is bleach

Bleach apologists advocate the treatment of cancer, malaria, HIV, autism and other conditions with a chlorine-based bleach called chlorine dioxide. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that chlorine dioxide treats any medical condition. It is a bleach used for water treatment or pulp bleaching.

However, bleach apologists have not stood unopposed. Scientific skeptics and public health experts have been speaking out against this kind of pseudoscientific quackery. So bleach apologists have decided to strike back by attempting to spread an image meme across Facebook and other social media sites. They want to argue that chlorine dioxide is safe for human consumption at high concentrations and that it is, in fact, not a form of bleach. Click the image to the right to see the full-resolution screenshot.

Let us take it apart, claim by claim.

Protecting people against drinking bleach does not “endanger lives”

Drinking any form of bleach, bathing in it or using it as enema is dangerous. This is because, among other things, bleaches are oxidizers. Oxidizers steal electrons from other substances, effectively oxidizing them. The body contains many important components such as proteins, carbohydrates and fats and all of these are susceptible to oxidation. Oxidation occur all the time in the body as part of normal metabolism, but it is delicately controlled by enzymes and various protective systems. If you drink bleach, you take in large concentrations and amounts of oxidizers, and this damages key components of the body. Above and beyond that, different kinds of bleaches have different kinds of harmful effects in the body, but they are all oxidizers. This is an inescapable fact.

There is no known health benefits with drinking bleach. It may purify water, but that does not mean that it kills pathogens in the body and certainly not that it treats medical conditions that are not due to pathogens. So protecting people from drinking bleach makes sense from the perspective of human health.

Read more of this post

Swedish Medical Products Agency Bans Ionosil Colloidal Silver

Ion Silver AB, Colloidal Silver

In another stunning victory for science-based medicine, Swedish Medical Products Agency (the regulatory body for medicine and medical products) has decided that the company Ion Silver AB must stop promoting and selling colloidal silver of the brand Ionosil together with claims that the product treats diseases such as cancer and Ebola.

As a death-blow to the colloidal silver fanaticism, the agency even refuted the classic trope of “What’s the harm?” and even went so far as to criticize anecdotal evidence and the claim that antiseptic effectiveness of waste water somehow means efficacy against human diseases.

What diseases did Ionosil Colloidal Silver falsely claim to treat?

Like most forms of alternative medicine, Ionosil Colloidal Silver claims to prevent, treat and cure a long list of diseases, such as cancer, malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, shingles, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Taiwan acute respiratory agent, Lyme’s disease, multiple sclerosis, Ebola virus disease, psoriasis, norovirus (winter vomiting bug) and arthritic pain.

This is an obvious sign of quackery. Diseases are usually very specific in terms of how they are caused, how they progress, what they do and what symptoms you get. This means that it is unlikely for a simplistic product like small particles of silver in a water solution to prevent, treat and cure all of them.

What is the basis for the decision made by Swedish Medical Products Agency?

Although acknowledging that colloidal silver is approved for being sold as water purification, the company has marketed it for human consumption together with false and misleading health claims. This entails that the product is, in practice, being sold as a medical product. To be able to sell a product as a pharmaceutical, it has to approved by the regulatory authorities and this requires scientific evidence for both safety and effectiveness. Since Ionosil is not an approved pharmaceutical, it cannot be sold or marketed the way that Ion Silver AB has done.

Furthermore, it concluded that diseases like cancer and malaria are serious medical conditions and quack products like Ionosil Colloidal Silver might “delude people who suffers from these diseases to use an ineffective product instead of getting a working treatment”.

Read more of this post

Mailbag: Actually, Science Isn’t Self-Refuting

mailbag letter

It is time for another entry into the mailbag series where I answer feedback email from readers and others. If you want to send me a question, comment or any other kind of feedback, please do so using the contact form on the about page.

Why is it so hard to argue with proponents of pseudoscience? In a previous post about the necessity of non-arbitrary axioms, it was speculated that this might depend on the fact that various cranks and quacks have fundamentally different ideas about what exists, the nature of knowledge and how to reach reasonable conclusions about the world around us. Three arguments were deployed against the rejection of axiomatic starting points: it is self-referentially incoherent, it leads to a rejection of knowledge and anything will be true if you assume a contradiction. When faced with this issue, some people appeal to coherentism or claim that science too must share these issues.

Science is not self-refuting

A comment recently submitted by a person going under the name of “The Adversary” tried to execute a similar pirouette. Although not relevant enough to be part of a reasoned discussion, refuting the claims therein can be useful for understanding the opponents of scientific rationality:

You realise [sic] that the scientific method also shares this key feature, right? If you say that the scientific method is not about reaching absolute truth, you are also expressing an implicit liar paradox. Is not the proposition that there is no absolute truth itself considered an absolute truth and therefore immediately self-refuting?

Scientific research is not about reaching absolute truth. So far so good. However, this does not constitute a claim that absolute truth does not exist. It is merely the humble admission that science, although very successful as a method for reaching reasonable conclusions about reality, is not all-powerful. Scientists are humans and can be subject to the same cognitive biases as anyone else. The strength of science, however, comes from its ability to self-correct and carry out independent tests. So no, science is not self-refuting.

Read more of this post

Seller of Quack “Treatment” Miracle Mineral Solution Convicted

Department of Justice

The promotion of quack treatments recently received a heavy blow from the U. S. criminal justice system. Louis Daniel Smith, one of the major players behind selling industrial-strength bleach as a miracle cure for various diseases and conditions, was convicted in a federal court for “introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead”, “fraudulently smuggling merchandise into the United States” and “conspiracy to commit multiple crimes” according to a press release from the U. S. Department of Justice. He now risks being sentenced to 34 years in prison.

This is a stunning victory for science-based medicine, consumer protection and scientific skepticism generally. It will help protect thousands of people with cancer, HIV, malaria or autism who would otherwise have fallen prey for quackery, both in terms of health and finances. It will also provide a powerful response to both those who claims that quack treatments do not cause harm and those who claim that skeptical activism is pointless. Pseudoscience (and alternative medicine in particular) does cause considerable harm, and skeptical activism does work.

What diseases and conditions were industrial-strength bleach suppose to treat?

A federal jury in the Eastern District of Washington returned a guilty verdict yesterday against a Spokane, Washington, man for selling industrial bleach as a miracle cure for numerous diseases and illnesses, including cancer, AIDS, malaria, hepatitis, lyme disease, asthma and the common cold, the Department of Justice announced.

Warning alarms should always sound when a purported treatment claims to be a miracle cure for a wide range of diseases and conditions that are largely unrelated to each other, such as AIDS, malaria, asthma and so on. However, this short list is incomplete. Miracle Mineral Solution is being peddled for an even wider array of conditions than that on the Internet: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), autism spectrum conditions, herpes, dog bites, root canal, gangrene, urinary tract infections, HPV warts, eczema, influenza, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, whooping cough, fibromyalgia, first-degree burns, spider bites, chlamydia, getting bitten by drug addicts, singles, bleeding hemorrhoids, diverticulitis, allergies, gall stones, eye infections, tetanus and even (believe it or not) wounds resulting from attacks by rogue baboons.

Read more of this post

Sun Staring Won’t Treat Anything, But Might Make You Go Blind

Natural News Sun Staring

One of the most absurd aspects of alternative medicine is probably when proponents advocate ineffective and dangerous treatments for things that are not clearly medical problems. In one fell swoop, they have invented both an alleged serious medical condition, as well as the supposed treatment. This, of course, is highly ironic since many alternative medicine proponents make this precise accusation against mainstream medicine. In this article, we will be taking a closer look at a recent blog post at quack central Natural News written by Ethan A. Huff that promoted staring into the sun for over 40 minutes a day in order to treat a calcified pineal gland. In reality, this is not a medical condition and staring into the sun is harmful to the eyes and could potentially make you go blind. As if this was not horrible enough, one of the commenters recommended chelation therapy with EDTA, which might even be lethal. Think there is no harm in alternative medicine? Think again.

Ancient does not mean valid

Hunt is quickly to trot out the classic alternative medicine fallacy known as appeal to tradition:

The technique is known as “sun gazing,” or “sun eating,” and it dates back more than 2,000 years to ancient India.

The fact that an error has been kept for a very long time does not make it correct. The fact that stubborn and ignorant proponents have refused to adapt their beliefs to reality for a very long time does not make those beliefs correct. People have believed that demons cause disease, that bloodletting cures infectious diseases and so on for hundreds of years, but that does not make those beliefs anymore true.

Read more of this post

How SVT Debatt Botched the Vaccine Issue

SVT Debatt

SVT Debatt is a Swedish studio debating program on public television that discuss a couple of current topics each week. Issues range from immigration and feminism to soccer violence and diet trends. Unfortunately, science experts are far and few between and extremists are often given considerably more time to spew their nonsense. This is because the format of the show consists of short back-and-forth exchanges between invited guests and other audience members that are often interrupted by the show host (who serve as a moderator), thus promoting quack one-liners while penalizing careful scientific arguments.

This became abundantly clear during the show aired on 9th April that dealt with childhood vaccines. They had invited several anti-vaccine activists that were given ample time to spread their pseudoscientific misinformation, such as promoting measles parties to intentionally give children measles and the absurd claim that vaccines are supposedly just placebo treatments.

This is a point-by-point refutation of the pseudoscientific claims delivered by anti-vaccine parents on the show.

Read more of this post

New Nature Methods Paper Argues that P Values Should be Discarded

Fickle P Values

In the wake of the recent discussions about null hypothesis statistical significance testing and p values on this website, Häggström has decided not to respond beyond calling the latest installment in the series nothing more than a “self-parody”. No substantial statistical or scientific arguments were presented. Despite his unilateral surrender, it can be informative to examine a method paper entitled “The fickle P value generates irreproducible results” written by Halsey, Curran-Everett, Vowler and Drummond (2015) that was just published in the renowned Nature Methods journal that slammed the usage of p values. The authors even call for a wholesale rejection of p values, writing that “the P value’s preeminence is unjustified” and encouraging researchers to “discard the P value and use alternative statistical measures for data interpretation”.

As expected, it corroborates and confirms a large number of arguments I presented in this exchange and directly contradicts many of the flawed assertions made by Häggström. In fact, the paper goes even further than I have done, (1) showing that p values are unstable to direct replication even at levels of statistical powers that are generally considered to be acceptable (e.g. 0.8), (2) that p values are probably superfluous for analysis with adequate statistical power and (3) that previous research that relied on p values needs to be reexamined and replicated with proper methods for statistical analysis.

Read more of this post

When Creationism and Anti-Vaccine Activism Mesh

Creationism and anti-vaccine activism

One of the more frightening conceptual aspects of pseudoscience is known as the crank magnetism effect. It occurs when someone, who promotes one kind of pseudoscience, becomes more likely of promoting other kinds of crankery. Someone who promotes HIV/AIDS denialism may also promote alternative medicine, someone who promotes conspiracy theories about 9/11 might also believe that chemtrails are real, someone who are against vaccines might advocate for conspiracy theories about condoms and so on. This might occur because of similar core beliefs, such as the alleged severe deceitfulness of the government or because of extreme religious beliefs, or perhaps because of the similar themes and content of many kinds of pseudoscience.

Cornelius Hunter, an intelligent design creationist associated with the Center for Science and Culture (previously named the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) at the Discovery Institute, is a good illustration of the concept of crank magnetism. In two recent blog post, he promoted a number of classic anti-vaccine talking points, but these were not completely unrelated to his intelligent design creationist activism. Instead, he appears to see both of the conflicts as part of a larger culture war between mainstream science (that he calls “scientism”) and various religious and anti-scientific groups and individuals.

Evolution is a strongly evidence-based explanation for the origin of biological diversity

It is extremely common for creationists of various stripes to mischaracterize evolution as something it is not. Evolution is a strongly evidence-based explanatory framework for the origin of biological diversity. It is not about the origin of life (abiogenesis), it is not a worldview, it does not assume philosophical naturalism with respects to the origin of life.

The opposition to science by the forces of pseudoscientific is a fact

Hunter, in an effort to tarnish the combat against pseudoscience, intentionally conflate the current opposition to science by pseudoscientific groups with the historical conflict thesis. The historical conflict thesis, advanced by Draper and White, was the notion that there has been a continuous war between science and religion throughout European history. This turns out to be an inaccurate view of history as the authors cherry-picked and exaggerated their examples. To be true, there were groups of religious individuals who opposed various scientific models and medical advances, but it was rarely the official position of large religious organizations. However, the falsity of the historical conflict thesis does not disprove the true claim that here are currently many conflicts between science and various religious and non-religious groups today.

Denialism is not “thoughtful disagreement”

Hunter writes that:

If you disagree with “science” (as if there is such a monolithic thing), you are not a concerned or thoughtful citizen, you are a denier. In this “we versus them” world, the negative connotation is obvious.

Promoting conspiracy theories about scientists or the scientific community is not the same as being “thoughtful”. Spreading dangerous myths about how vaccines are harming millions of people or that genetically modified foods cause cancer is not the same as being “thoughtful”. Cherry-picking 1998 as a starting point in surface temperature graphs because it had a strong El Niño event in an effort to make it look like there has been no global warming during the past 17 years is not being “thoughtful”. There is a world of difference between being concerned and thoughtful and being a denialist. People are more than welcome to question scientific models and claims. In fact, this is encouraged since science grows by the rejection of ideas that do not work and by the tentative acceptance of models that do work (in terms of making accurate predictions). However, they should not be expected to be treated with silk gloves when they promote anti-scientific ideas that have been debunked thousands and thousands of times before. If you genuinely want to be part of an intellectually honest discussion on scientific topics (such as vaccines, GM foods or evolution) at least try to do some actual reading of credible scientific sources, whether technical or popular.

Read more of this post

Häggström on NHST: Once More Unto the Breach

Häggström, round four

It appears that Häggström still refuses to address the major criticisms laid out against NHST. In the addition he wrote to his previous post, he continues to engage in personalities and develops his tendency to mischaracterize my position into a genuine art form. Contrary to Häggström, I actually do think that people can often be statistically or scientifically non-naive yet promote naive beliefs and positions. That is the very definition of selective skepticism, that we all know is widespread. By claiming that “accept” is a legitimate NHST synonym for “not reject”, Häggström inadvertently show that NHST has to carry some of the responsibility for common misconceptions, such as confusing statistical non-significance with equivalence. I go into greater detail about how the popular R. A. Fischer quote that statistical significance either means that the null hypothesis is false or that something unlikely has occurred is false with the counterexample of large sample sizes. Finally, I reiterate the many criticisms that Häggström has either failed to respond to, or “responded to” by making faulty straw man assertions about what my position was.

Häggström, despite correction, fails to distinguish between person and argument

His recent response comes with another spate of attempted insults and engagement in personalities. This time, he alleges that I am a “disinformant” and a “silly fool”. Not only that he has now started complaining that my tone is “precocious” and patronizing”. He even goes so far as to arbitrarily attribute emotions to me when he claims that I “angrily attack” NHST. Yet none of this constitute actual substantive arguments. None of it implies that any of my arguments are mistaken and none of it implies that Häggström is correct.

I can think of nothing else to do but to quote what I wrote in the latest post: “The more my opponent dwell on my alleged personal traits or failings and make liberal use of invectives, the more they demonstrate that they are (1) unable to distinguish between an argument and the person making that argument, (2) have reduced capacity for emotional regulation and (3) tacitly admit that they do not have much in way of substantive arguments against my position. Their behavior does not harm me in any way. In fact, I find it endlessly entertaining. All they are doing is harming their own capacity to accurately perceiving reality.” Not that I think the message will get across. So by all means, I hope that Häggström continues to engage in personalities, since it is just a repeated demonstration of (1)-(3). He is doing all the work for me. Fantastic.

Read more of this post

Häggström Disrobed on NHST

Häggström, round three

In previous posts, I criticized the doomsday arguments made by some NHST statisticians about the recent banning of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) as well as debunked the objections leveled against Geoff Cumming’s dance of the p value argument. This has now drawn the attention of mathematical statistician Olle Häggström and prompted him to write a response post to yours truly. He spends most of the post engaging in personalities and raving about perceived injustices he thinks I subjected him to, but he eventually discuss two examples where he thinks I have gone astray. Unfortunately, his first example is a trivial misreading of what I wrote as well as a quotation out of context. The second example, where he provides a situation where he thinks NHST is essential, is only slightly better. In the end, he fails to successfully rebuke any of my substantial arguments.

Häggström excessively engages in personalities

Because I have argued against pseudoscience for many years, I have developed a thick skin and a laser-like mentality trained at cutting through the nonsense. The more my opponent dwell on my alleged personal traits or failings and make liberal use of invectives, the more they demonstrate that they are (1) unable to distinguish between an argument and the person making that argument, (2) have reduced capacity for emotional regulation and (3) tacitly admit that they do not have much in way of substantive arguments against my position. Their behavior does not harm me in any way. In fact, I find it endlessly entertaining. All they are doing is harming their own capacity to accurately perceiving reality.

Read more of this post

The Laughable Desperation of NHST proponents

Häggström again

In a previous post, the many insurmountable flaws and problems of null hypothesis statistical significance testing (NHST) were discussed, such as the fact that p values are only indirectly related to the posterior probability, almost all null hypotheses are false and irrelevant, it contributes to black-and-white thinking on research results, p values depends strongly on sample size, and it is unstable with regards to replication. For most realistic research designs, it is essentially a form of Russian roulette. After a mediocre effort, mathematical statistician Olle Häggström failed to defend p values and NHST from this onslaught. Now, he was decided to rejoin the fray with yet another defense of NHST, this time targeting the dance of the p values argument made by Geoff Cumming. Does his rebuttal hold water?

Arguing from rare exceptions does not invalidate a general conclusion

Häggström seems to be under the impression that if he can find rare and complicated counterexamples, he can undermine the entire case for confidence intervals [being generally superior to p values, see clarification here]. (all translations are my own):

To calculate a confidence intervals is akin to calculating p values for all possible parameter values simultaneously, and in more complex contexts (especially when more than one unknown parameter exists) this is often mathematically impossible and/or lead to considerably more complicated and difficult-to-interpret confidence regions than the nicely intervals that are obtained in the video.

This is perhaps due to his background in mathematics where a single counterexample really does disprove a general claim. For instance, the function f(x) = |x| is continuous but not differentiable, thus disproving the claim that continuity implies differentiability. In the case of confidence intervals, on the other hand, the fact that they work in cases with a single parameter is enough to justify their usage. Keeping in mind that the vast number of experiments done in e. g. medicine are probably not complicated estimations of multiple population parameters, but more akin to measuring the effects of a medication compared with placebo, the superiority of confidence intervals over p values for a large portion of experiments stands. Yes, obviously we need more sophisticated statistical tools in more complicated experiments, but that is not a valid argument in the surrounding where they can be calculated and where they do work.

Finally, Häggström continues to refuse the fact that confidence intervals can be dislodged from the framework of NHST. Read more of this post

Debunking Statistically Naive Criticisms of Banning P Values

Häggström Hävdar about NHST

Olle Häggström is a mathematical statistician from Chalmers University of Technology and a prominent scientific skeptic. His projects and papers relevant for skepticism include several hard-hitting defenses of good science, such as opposing pseudoscience about climate change, criticizing the encroachment of postmodernism into higher education and exposing the intelligent design creationist abuse of the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems. However, he also promotes unsupported beliefs about NHST, mathematical platonism and artificial general intelligence, thus making him another example of an inverse stopped clock.

Recently, Häggström wrote a credulous blog post where he exclaimed that banning NHST from the journal would constitute intellectual suicide by BASP. In it, he repeats a number of errors that he has done before and adds on a few others.

The only things about NHSTP and confidence intervals that are “invalid” are certain naive and inflated ideas about their interpretation, held by many statistically illiterate scientists.

In this sentence, Häggström deploys the classic rhetorical technique whereby he says that the NHST procedure itself is not flawed, only that many scientists misuse it. This was refuted in a previous post on Debunking Denialism that strongly criticized NHST: “[a] method like NHST that has such a strong potential for misunderstandings and abuse even among a large proportion of the most highly intelligent and highly educated has to accept a large proportion of the blame.” But even if we ignore that, NHST is flawed for a great number of reasons.

First, the p value is only indirectly related to the posterior probability. This means that a low p value is not a good argument against the null hypothesis because the alternative hypotheses might be even more unlikely. If you test homeopathy for cancer or the alleged psychic ability of someone, it is not really that impressive to find a p value that is lower than 0.05 (or lower than 0.0001 or whatever). Even testing moderately unlikely hypotheses (with an empirical prior of anywhere between, say, 10% and 30%) means that the p value is not a good measurement of posterior probability.

Second, null hypotheses are almost always both false and irrelevant. Read more of this post

In Defense of Paranormal Debunking – Part IV: Psychic Powers

Winston Wu's website

So far, we have seen how paranormalist Winston Wu misunderstands core skeptic principles such as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, parsimony, burden of evidence, the perils and pitfalls of anecdotal evidence, and the fallibility of human memory. We have also investigated the difference between the unexplained and the unexplainable, the nature of beliefs, the methods of scientific skepticism, irrationality and the scope and influence of pseudoscience.

In this fourth installment of this articles series, we move onto examining specific paranormalist claims, such as psychics that claim to be able to talk to the dead, the value of controls and replication in psi research, the nature of the placebo effect and the alleged existence of miracles.

Misunderstood principle #16: Psychological techniques of alleged psychics

Alleged psychics use a wide range of psychological techniques (reviewed here) to persuade people that they have supernatural powers that allows them to supposedly communicate with the dead or gain important insights about the past: cold reading, warm reading, hot reading, time-shifting, inflating probabilistic resources, shotgunning, covering all bases, vanishing negative, escape hatch, changing the subject, spreading the net wider, retrofitting, post hoc rationalizations and so on.

Wu apparently do not recognize the breadth of psychological techniques because he only brings up cold and hot reading:

The problem with the cold reading/hot reading explanation is that for many accounts of psychic readings (including some of my own) the techniques do not account for the specific information attained. For example, some psychic can tell you very specific things about you without asking you any questions, which rules out the “fishing for clues” technique. If neither they nor any of their accomplices talked to you beforehand, then that would also rule out the same technique. […[ Unfortunately for skeptics, there are many cases of psychic readings where all of the above were ruled out. Therefore, cold/hot reading cannot account for every case. In such cases, the skeptic is left without explanations, but often continue to insist that the client must have given away some kind of clue, and demand that this be disproved first before imposing any claim of genuine psychic ability at work.

Because there are dozens and dozens of other techniques besides cold and hot reading, this is a very weak argument for the existence of psychic powers. Although Wu does acknowledge that there are many frauds out there, Wu has denied himself the opportunity to fully investigate alternatives to his hypothesis that alleged psychics have genuine supernatural powers.

The next part of the section contains anecdotes about visits to psychics that he and various people have done. However, as was explored in a previous installment, the plural of anecdote is not data. Also, many of them are second or third-hand accounts, taken from email list discussions or an anonymous story about remembering playing with an Ouija board at age 11. Thus, they contain information that can be considerably different from the actual events and Wu even acknowledge that at least some of the alleged examples are examples of cold reading. Because of that, this installment focus on examining Wu’s own experience.

Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 523 other followers

%d bloggers like this: