Debunking Denialism

Defending science against the forces of irrationality.

Tim Wise Blames the Holocaust on “Scientism”

Tim Wise

Tim Wise is a staunch anti-racist activist and he has written several powerful evisceration that exposes how racists abuse statistics to rationalize their false and toxic belief in the innate criminality of ethnic minorities. Two especially exquisite treatments are: “Nazis Can’t Do Math: Reflections on Racism, Crime and the Illiteracy of Right-Wing Statistical Analysis” (that can be found here) and “Race, Crime and Statistical Malpractice: How the Right Manipulates White Fear With Bogus Data” (that can be found here). These, and the scientific references therein, were used as source material for an article on Debunking Denialism called “White Genocide, Eurabia and Other White Supremacist Nonsense” (that can be found here) that debunked the two ludicrous claims that immigration is actually a covert genocide on white people and that there is a supposed “epidemic” of black on white murders.

Yet, dark clouds loom on the horizon. Like so many otherwise brilliant intellectuals, Wise recently espoused an assertion that was so irrevocably erroneous that it is truly mind-boggling. Debunking Denialism has covered similar situations before, such as biologist Jerry Coyne and his support for anti-psychiatry or Neil deGrasse Tyson when he invited Mayim Bialik (who is anti-vaccine and promote homebirth and homeopathy). It is frustrating how otherwise smart people can get things so wrong in some areas.

In a recent Facebook status update, Tim Wise blamed “scientism” for being the root cause of the Holocaust:

That’s right, he actually blames “scientism” (which he defines as “the intellectual fetishizing of science”) for the Holocaust. The context surrounds the recent murders of French cartoonists and there is some merit to the idea that some critics of religion take things too far by overly generalizing about Muslims. However, this does not justify his malignant outburst about the cause of the Holocaust.

Read more of this post

Mailbag: Richard Polt Responds (Reductionism in Science)

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.

For most scientists, the term “reductionism” represents a profoundly successful way of understanding features of our world as composed of smaller parts and a fuller investigation of those features involves a detailed understanding of their parts and how their interaction with each other and the environment cause higher-level properties. A classic example is surface tension: pure water consists of nothing but molecules of H20 and their complex interaction creates the feature we know as surface tension. Yet surface tension does not exist on the level of individual water molecules, but a feature that occurs on a higher level of analysis without there being anything “magical” with water in addition to those individual water molecules.

For sophisticated mysterians and proponents of pseudoscience, the term “reductionism” has the power to turn warm smiles into distorted snarls. The practice, according to these critics, amounts to turning conscious humans with moral character, free will and an appreciation for art to nothing but amoral and ugly meat machines who are callously manipulated by brain chemicals and a deterministic universe, like puppeteers controlling their marionettes.

One such sophisticated mysterian is Richard Polt, a professor of philosophy at Xavier University, and Debunking Denialism previously published a critical analysis of his opposition to reductionism. In summary, Polt confused hierarchical reductionism (the reductionism used by mainstream science as described in the first paragraph) with greedy reductionism (the faulty version of reductionism described in the second paragraph). Greedy reductionism is thus nothing but (no pun intended) a false caricature and does nothing refute hierarchical reductionism.

Polt recently wrote a short response to that piece:

Read more of this post

Refusing to Provide Evidence? Here are Some Productive Alternatives

Paper, Research, Evidence

One of the most substantial problems with pseudoscientific cranks is that their beliefs and opinions are irrational and not based on any kind of credible scientific evidence. To prevent themselves from truly coming to terms with this, they have to invent a large number of after-the-fact rationalizations to explain away the massive amount of scientific evidence that runs contrary to their position in order to ease their cognitive dissonance. However, pseudoscientific cranks have learned that interactions with scientific skeptics are rarely beneficial for them. The evidence against their quackery is there, they cannot refute it and some people are starting to see through their nonsense. Thus, there is often an urgent need to develop other means to defend their flawed assertions. This is done by demonizing their opponents in order to justify rejecting everything those critics bring to the table, such as calling them shills for large corporations. In some cases, the mere request for evidence is considered to be some kind of attack against their person.

There is a disturbing tendency coalescing in many online communities (such as blogs, forums and social media website). It is based on misrepresenting skeptics as “a mob of harassers” and all critical questions or requests for supporting evidence are assumed to be asked in “bad faith” to only serve as dishonest methods to “demean or destroy” people. It is not just that rational discussion of ideas has been even more difficult to maintain than they already are, but that even the initiating of such an exchange is met with suspicion, thinly veiled hostility, and sometimes outright anger. After all, if you cannot successfully present supporting evidence for your beliefs, why even bother interacting with scientific skeptics? It is not like there is anything in it for the crank.

This article examines some common methods that pseudoscientific cranks use to avoid exchanges with scientific skeptics. Several generally applicable and productive alternatives to refusing to provide evidence is discussed.

Read more of this post

Swedish Public Radio Promotes Pseudoscientific “Detox” Regimes

Detox on Swedish Public Radio

Pseudoscientific “detox” regimes are based on the flawed idea that unspecified “toxins” accumulate in the body and by consuming nothing but fruit juices, fasting, taking part in dangerous colon cleansing or using fake foot baths will rid the body of these alleged “toxins”. In reality, the liver and kidneys are very efficient at eliminating real toxins and other waste products from the body. If the body accumulates actual toxins at harmful levels, that means that the liver and kidneys are malfunctioning or shutting down. This would be lethal, and not just generate diffuse symptoms such as tiredness. Drinking nothing but juices or fasting will not help deadly poisoning. So in essence, “detox” products are useless.

Recently, the Swedish Public Radio (“Sveriges Radio”) broadcasted an episode of P4 Extra with guest host Mina Benaissa (2015-01-01, 13:00 local time). Around 41:21 into the show, we are treated to the following exchange about pseudoscientific detox treatments between the host and alleged “detox expert” Erica Palmcrantz Aziz Read more of this post

Seven New Year’s Resolutions From Debunking Denialism

Fireworks

As people turn from mainstream media in print to online content, sources of information has to fight for attention. Some make use of ethically questionable methods to attract viewers, such as clickbaits or fake outrage. As we enter the new year of 2015, Debunking Denialism has put together a list of seven new year’s resolutions. There will be no low quality content, no clickbaits, no donation request, no tribalism, no paid advertisement, no link spam and no manufactroversy or fake outrage on this website.

No low quality content: a lot of the posts published on Debunking Denialism takes a moderate amount of time to research and write. This is because they usually go into great detail on many issues and strives to fact-check all content posted. This has an unfortunate consequence for the frequency of new content and it is not as high as what would be optimal. However, the alternative of pushing out posts faster is likely to come at the cost of dropping quality, either in terms of length or detail. It can also be seen as a way of maintaining high visitor counts by portioning out skeptical insights over several posts per day or similar. However, the main goal of Debunking Denialism in terms of traffic is not to have a constant high visitor rate (because there are no paid ads), but to be a repository of good scientific and skeptical content. Thus, Debunking Denialism will strive to have high quality content and not sacrifice that for attention or posting frequency.

No clickbaits: click baits are done by writing fairly mundane content and adding a provocative title that reeks of sensationalism. This is a way of fighting for attention and getting as many clicks to the website as possible in a way to get ad revenue. The more extreme version of clickbaiting involves writing inflammatory content in addition to the sensationalist title. Debunking Denialism will never use sensationalist headlines that are not accurate descriptions of the content in the article. Needless to say, inflammatory and sensationalistic content with no scientific or skeptical value will also not be posted on this website.

Read more of this post

Mailbag: Faith Healing for Schizophrenia is a Bad Idea

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.

In a previous post, I explored the pseudoscientific belief that schizophrenia is the result of demonic possession. In reality, schizophrenia is a psychiatric condition that results from a complex interaction of biological, psychological and social factors. The Journal of Religion and Health (impact factor 0.8) had published a paper by M. Kemal Irmak falsely claiming that hallucinations are just misinterpretations of real sensory information caused by demons. What evidence did Irmak present for this astonishing view? None whatsoever.

In response to that post, Michael wrote me the following email (additional personal information has been redacted):

I came across your blog while researching the use of folk healing methods for believed possession states in light of the new DSM diagnosis for Dissociative Identity Disorder. Specifically I saw your response to Irmak’s paper attributing hallucinations by persons with schizophrenia as caused by demonic activity. I certainly understand your argument against the etiology Mr. Irmak is advancing. My question is more on the treatment side […]. If a Turkish patient with schizophrenia believes that their symptoms are caused by djinn/demons, sees a faith healer and experiences a treatment consistent with social-cultural-religious understandings, could it be argued that this is a good treatment if the person has a reduction in their symptoms? It seems that there is evidence these approaches have better “recovery” rates for chronic psychosis than the medication-heavy methods in the West. (I am not saying no one should take anti-psychotics. […])

In other words, can faith healing be a valid part of a culture competent treatment program for schizophrenia if it was associated with a reduction in symptoms?

I am not a psychiatrists, psychologist, psychotherapist or any other kind of mental health professional, so I cannot give any medical advice in regards to treatments for individuals with schizophrenia above the mainstream standard of care, which is not limited to antipsychotics, but include cognitive behavioral therapy, rehabilitation and other treatments.

Cultural competence is crucial for psychotherapists who work with culturally and ethnically diverse clients. Otherwise, there is a risk of miscommunication, collapse of the therapeutic alliance and treatment failure. This means taking into account how culture and ethnicity can influence affect and behavior, individual versus collective goals, culture-specific beliefs about mental health and psychiatric conditions, value systems, relationship between treatment provider and client and so on. At the same time, psychotherapists should not fall for simplistic stereotypes of clients from different cultures or of different ethnic backgrounds.

What role does traditional cultural treatments play in culturally competent psychiatric treatment? Can faith healing be a valid part of a culture competent treatment program for schizophrenia if it was associated with a reduction in symptoms? The following arguments are from the standpoint of scientific skepticism and should not be considered medical advice.

First, we need to examine precisely what is meant by “symptom reduction”. Read more of this post

In Defense of Paranormal Debunking – Part III: Nature of Skepticism

Winston Wu

In the two previous installments, we have explored a large number of skeptical principles and exposed the various deceptive ways that Winston Wu has falsely characterized them. Confidence in a proposition should be proportional to the evidence for that proposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Models that make fewer evidence-free assumptions should be preferred to models that are overly complex because they are more likely. The burden of evidence rests on the person advancing the position that is less likely with respect to the background information. Anecdotal evidence, although useful for generating hypotheses for future research, is not scientific evidence as it lacks independent support, is subject to cognitive biases and maybe be non-representative due to cherry-picking. Human memory is fallible and there are hundreds of people who have been falsely convicted on eyewitness testimony alone. Scientific skepticism is not about the automatic dismissal of supernatural claims. Rather, it is based on the fact that supernatural claims usually have little to no evidence supporting them, and plenty of evidence against them.

In this third installment, we will investigate how Wu misunderstands five additional skeptical principles and stances. Just because something currently lacks a scientific explanation does not mean that it is unexplainable or that supernatural “explanations” automatically win even though they lack evidence. Wu also equivocates between “beliefs” in the general sense of having opinions or accepting positions with the specific sense of holding evidence-free positions about the world. Scientific skepticism is about using accumulated scientific knowledge and rational arguments to investigate claims. It is not the same as philosophical skepticism or cynicism. Contrary to Wu, pointing out that some people’s beliefs are irrational or that they have a primitive form of thinking is not a personal attack, but an intellectually honest assessment of reality.

Read more of this post

Why Rachel Parent is Wrong About Genetically Modified Foods

Rachel Parent

Rachel Parent is a Canadian 15-year-old anti-GM activist who wants GM foods to be labelled. In an independently organized TEDx event at Toronto, she held a talk regurgitating almost all popular anti-GM claims in under 15 minutes. She claims to have been interested in GM crops since she was 12, yet the “research” she did involved reading anti-GM websites, not scientific papers. It is great that young women are getting increasingly interested in science and scientific research, but deceptive misinformation is a poor substitute for scientific integrity. In reality, all of her claims are either wrong or misleading: BT is safe for humans and have been used in organic farming, all plants contain their own “bug killers”, GM technology has been used to save the papaya and make rice prevent vitamin A deficiency, GM crops does increase total yield, is associated with less usage of dangerous pesticides, GM crops do not harm beneficial insects, farmers are not sued by accidental cross-pollination and GM crops are as safe as conventional crops. Even the paper she cites as evidence for GMOs causing allergies does not even mention GM crops. This post goes into detail in explaining why Parent is mistaken.

BT toxin is safe for humans and has been extensively in organic farming

BT toxin is a substance that is produced by bacteria and is only dangerous to a certain group of insect pests. This is because of its high specificity: it requires an alkaline stomach environment (humans and other mammals have acidic), a specific protease that cleaves the inactive precursor into the active toxin, a specific receptor on the gut surface that triggers the rupturing of the stomach lining.

It has been used extensively in both conventional and organic farming for many decades by spraying bacterial spores on the plants surface. However, with the help of recombinant DNA technology, scientists have been able to insert the gene that produces this toxin into the plant itself. It is a method that we know is safe and that we know work.

Plants cannot run, therefore they contain their own bug killers

Although it might seem odd at first that plants contain their own bug killers. However, this is actually very common. Most plants are stationary with roots into the ground and so they are not able to run away from their predators. Instead, they have evolved means of protecting themselves by using poisonous secondary metabolites. Among these are the solanine in conventional potatoes, spinasterol in spinach and coumarin in carrots. These can have neurotoxic effects, interfere with hormonal signaling and cross-links DNA. So far from being weird, plants making their own bug killers is the norm. These substances, like BT, occur in very small concentrations of course, so they are not dangerous to humans.

GM technology as been used to save papaya and to prevent deadly vitamin A deficiency

Parent focus exclusively on the two most common GM applications in agriculture: herbicide resistance and insect resistance. However, she does not bother to discuss other applications, such as virus-resistant papaya or rice that have more vitamin A.

The papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) almost exterminated papaya farming in Hawaii, which represented the vast majority of papaya production in the world. Researchers were able to genetically modify those papayas to make them resistant, and thus prevent the papaya production from collapsing. In other words, one of the reason that we still have papayas today is because of GM technology.

Read more of this post

Types of Pseudoscience That Deserve More Skeptical Attention

Attention!

During the past decade, a lot of skeptical activism online has involved topics such as vaccines, GMOs, and evolution. There are thousands of videos, articles and blog posts destroying creationist delusions about bacterial flagellum, the Cambrian radiation and transitional fossils, countering fear-mongering about biotech applications and explaining the benefits of vaccines. Yet some forms of widespread pseudoscience receive considerably less attention in the skeptical community. This posts looks closer at some such cases, possible reasons for why these have been neglected and why they should be given more attention.

Anti-psychiatry:

The opposition to modern psychiatry takes various forms. Alternative medicine proponents think that psychiatric conditions are caused by fungal infection or chemtrails and can be cured with homeopathy, spices or organic potatoes. New age believers think that depression is caused by people attracting it to their lives, and therefore have themselves to blame. They usually think that everything can be cured with positive thinking. Sophisticated mysterians are often non-religious journalists who decry any scientific discussion of psychiatric conditions with accusations of “determinism” or “scientism”. They typically believe that science will never understand art, beauty or consciousness. Even people who are otherwise skeptical of pseudoscience have bought into anti-psychiatry, often displaying the common denialist tactics. There are also conspiracy lunatics who think that psychiatric medication brainwash people and that it is all a government ploy. Some scientologists think that psychiatrists kidnap, torture and kill their patients.

There are not so many skeptics that confront anti-psychiatry. Debunking Denialism has written a little over 20 critical posts refuting different aspects of anti-psychiatry. Steven Novella, Amy Tuteur and Harris Hall has written several detailed treatments. There are probably other skeptics that have covered it as well, but they have not gotten enough exposure. Despite this, it is essential to counter the actions of anti-psychiatry movements because psychiatric conditions affect so many people. According to WHO, depression is quickly becoming one of the biggest causes of disability in the world with around 350 million people directly affected. They and their loved ones are vulnerable to this kind of quackery and charlatans must not be allowed to exploit people.

Read more of this post

How to Breach Genetic Privacy

Breaching genetic privay

ResearchBlogging.org

Massive parallel sequencing technology has opened up endless possibilities in areas such as diagnosing clinical conditions, finding new drug targets, predicting disease risk and fighting crime. A room with twenty modern sequencing machines can sequence around a thousand human genomes per day. Most practical applications require knowledge of only a tiny section of the genome, which means that the rate at which genetic information can be acquired is truly astonishing. With it comes serious ethical considerations. What happens if your genetic information leaks and can be accessed by employers, insurance companies or adversaries with an axe to grind?

Erlich and Narayanan (2014) describe some of the techniques that can be used to breach the genetic privacy of individuals (with real-world examples of exploits) and discuss some of the methods that can be used to safeguard it from intruders.

How adversaries can breach genetic privacy

There are three larger categories of attacks: based on identity tracing, attribute disclosure using DNA, and completion attacks. Identity tracing is based on meta-data from scientific research, such as genotypic sex, date of birth, zip code and surname. Attribute disclosure attacks are based on accessing the genetic information of a person and then matching it against an anonymous sample linked to sensitive information. Finally, completion attacks allows the inference of target genotypic information based on other areas of the target genome or the genomes of relatives.

Identity tracing attacks

Identity tracing attacks starts with genomic information from an unknown individual. However, this is usually associated with metadata in the form of quasi-identifiers, such as genotypic sex, age, date of birth, zip code, surname and so on. Armed with this information, the adversary can drastically narrow down the range of possible targets to a small group, and then pin-point the individual with the help of information found social media websites such as Facebook. This is done with a wide range of techniques, such as surname inference, DNA phenotypic, demographic identifiers, pedigree structure and side-channel leaks.

Read more of this post

Scientific American Publishes Anti-Psychiatry Nonsense

Anti-psychiatry at Scientific American

Imagine that Scientific American published a blog post promoting the idea that we should abandon a disease-centered perspective on autoimmunity because the simplified notion of “immunological imbalance” surely cannot explain all aspects of autoimmune conditions. Imagine that it argued that heart diseases are not really diseases since cognitive and lifestyle interventions can sometimes decrease symptoms of many heart-related conditions and because social factors like poverty and childhood experience also influence heart disease risk. Imagine that the post claimed that biological explanations of autoimmunity implies a deterministic worldview that stigmatizes patients with autoimmune conditions and that biological factors should therefore not be emphasized in the understanding of these conditions.

Most rational and scientifically-minded people would rightly dismiss such “arguments” as unscientific nonsense that was clearly based on several, profound misunderstanding of the results of basic medical research. A lot of them would also seriously consider unsubscribing from Scientific American content because of the massive credibility loss. Yet when it comes to psychiatry and psychiatric conditions, these ignorant claims are often prominently featured online by popular science magazines without any critical consideration.

Recently, Scientific American Mind published an anti-psychiatry piece written by clinical psychologist Peter Kinderman on their guest blog and it regurgitates a large number of commonly used anti-psychiatry tropes. It misrepresents mainstream psychiatric explanations of psychiatric conditions as “chemical imbalance”, when it is really about a complex interaction between many different biological, psychological and social factors. It dismisses biological explanations of hallucinations and delusions by pointing out that social factors also play a role, when both are clearly important. It misunderstands the nature of biological heritability by conflating it with immutable, when genes are risk factors, not absolute determinants. It erects a false dichotomy between medication and psychotherapy and claim that since psychotherapy can often be effective, biological explanations and medical treatments should be deemphasized. In reality, the best available treatment for a wide range of psychiatric conditions seems to be a combination of medication and psychotherapy.

Scientific American tries to avoid responsibility by posting a disclaimer (not once, but twice) that the “views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American”, but the fact remains that Scientific American has an intellectual and moral responsibility not to promote flawed and pseudoscientific content. This incident shows that they failed that responsibility, and in doing so, join the ranks of bad science journalism that increasingly plague popular science spaces on the Internet.

Read more of this post

Why P-Values and Statistical Significance Are Worthless in Science

P-values are scientifically irrelevant

Why should we test improbable and irrelevant null hypotheses with a chronically misunderstood and abused method with little or no scientific value that has several, large detrimental effects even if used correctly (which it rarely is)?

During the past 60+ years, scientific research results have been analyzed with a method called null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) that produce p-values that the results are then judged by. However, it turns out that this is a seriously flawed method. It does not tell us anything about how large the difference was, the precision estimated it or what it all means in the scientific context. It tests false and irrelevant null hypotheses. P-values are only indirectly related to posterior probability via Bayes theorem, what p-value you get for a specific experiment is often determined by chance, the alternative hypotheses might be even more unlikely, it increases the false positive rate in published papers, contributes to publication bias and causes published effect sizes to be overestimated and have low accuracy. It is also a method that most researchers do not understand, neither the basic definitions nor what a specific p-value means.

This article surveys some of these flaws, misunderstandings and abuses and looks at what the alternatives are. It also anticipates some of the objections made by NHST supporters. Finally, it examines a case study consisting on an extremely unproductive discussion with a NHST statistician. Unsurprisingly, this NHST statistician was unable to provide a rationally convincing defense of NHST.

Why NHST is seriously flawed

There are several reasons why NHST is a flawed and irrational technique for analyzing scientific results.

Statistical significance does not tell us what we want to know: A p-value tells us the probability of obtaining at least as extreme results, given the truth of the null hypothesis. However, it tells us nothing about how large the observed difference was, how precisely we have estimated it, or what the difference means in the scientific context.

The vast majority of null hypotheses are false and scientifically irrelevant: It is extremely unlikely that two population parameters would have the exact same value. There are almost always some differences. Therefore, it is not meaningful to test hypotheses we know are almost certainly false. In addition, rejections of the null hypothesis is almost a guarantee if the sample size is large enough. In science, are we really interested in finding if e. g. a medication is better than placebo. We want to know how much better. Therefore, non-nil null hypotheses might be of more interest. Instead of testing if a medication is equal placebo, it can be more important to test if a medication is good enough to be better than placebo in a clinically meaningful way.

Read more of this post

Homeopathy for Ebola: The Quackery That Knows No Limits

Ebola virus

Ebola is a virus that causes a dangerous hemorrhagic fever disease with a high mortality rate. Right now, there have been at least 9000 cases of Ebola viral disease and ~4500 documented deaths. It has spread to seven different countries: Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain and the United States, although according to the October 17th update from the World Health Organization (WHO) the outbreak seems to have ended in Senegal.

In the wake of this human tragedy, pseudoscientific “treatments” against Ebola have cropped up like weeds around the Internet. Various websites suggest antioxidants, selenium, vitamin C, Vitamin D, iodine, magnesium, estradiol, infrared radiation, sodium bicarbonate, cannabis, coffee, fermented soy, silver and salty drinking water. Natural News, the largest website promoting quack treatments in the world, even posted an article recommending homeopathy and describing how to prepare remedies. However, this was pulled after a couple of days as apparently homeopathy for Ebola was a too deranged idea even for Natural News.

Recently, Fran Sheffield (the director of Homeopathy Plus Australia) put up a petition (webcite) at Change.org urging the WHO to “test and distribute homeopathy as quickly as possible” to contain outbreaks of Ebola. This petition, together with 2000 signatures, were sent to Director General Dr Margaret Chan at the WHO in early October. Unfortunately, it contains numerous scientific, medical and logical errors that will be discussed in this article. The irrational peculiarities of the messages left from supporters of homeopathy for Ebola will also be explored.

Homeopathy is not effective for any medical condition

Homeopathy has a proven track record of treating and preventing serious epidemic diseases.

High-quality scientific studies show that homeopathy does not work for any particular medical condition. This position is even held by the National Center of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (NCCAM), an organization that has been given substantial criticism for being too friendly to quack treatments. Not only that, homeopathy is incompatible with core principles of chemistry and biology: the preparations are diluted to such a degree that there are, statistically speaking, no active molecule of the diluted substance whatsoever. In other words, treating Ebola virus disease with homeopathy is equivalent to treating it with water or sugar pills.

Read more of this post

The Fourth Anniversary of Debunking Denialism

Anniversary cake

Another year has passed here at Debunking Denialism and it is time to celebrate the fourth anniversary since the creation of this website.

New content

Since last year, a little over 50 new articles have been posted, discussing topics such as the pseudoscientific climate report published by the Heartland Institute, science and pseudoscience among law enforcement, anti-immigration advertisements, how race realists abuse heritability, Bosnian genocide denialism, the pitfalls of fMRI-based lie detection, Bayesian self-defense against paranormalist claims, spell casting against HIV/AIDS, pseudomathematical objections to genetically modified foods, fraudulent psychics brought to justice, extensive plagiarism in the renowned Genetics journal, homeopathic “treatments” for Ebola and how modern genomics crushed Bigfoot pseudoscience.

New sections started on Debunking Denialism during the past year includes cryptozoology and bad science journalism.

An explosion of page views

The activity here at Debunking Denialism has grown faster than ever could have been anticipated. The website passed 200k page views in early July, and recently passed 300k. Read more of this post

How Modern Genomics Crushed Bigfoot Pseudoscience

Bigfoot? Or just a guy in a suit?

ResearchBlogging.org

Thousands of people around the world believe in the existence of a large primate that roams the mountain forests. It is known by many names, such as Bigfoot, Yeti and Sasquatch. Many of these enthusiasts even claim to have genuine biological samples from these creatures. Skeptics have so far remain unconvinced. No authentic photographs or video material has been produced (the one on the right is a man in a suit) and no bodies have been found. Meanwhile, cryptozoologists complain that scientist are not taking them seriously.

To remedy this problem, Sykes et. al. (2014) requested samples from all over the world, subject them to rigorous decontamination protocols, amplified the DNA and then sequence them in order to find out their identity. Guess what they found?

Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 511 other followers

%d bloggers like this: