A Life Preserver for Staying Afloat in a Sea of Misinformation

Melanie Trecek-King goals as a science educator are to teach students the essential skills of science literacy and critical thinking. Helping them understand the process of science and how to draw reasonable conclusions from the available evidence can empower them to make better decisions and protect them from being fooled or harmed.

Yet while educators agree that these skills are important, the stubborn persistence of pseudoscientific and irrational beliefs demonstrates that we have plenty of room for improvement. To help address this problem, she developed a general-education science course (Trecek-King 2022) that, instead of teaching science as a collection of facts to memorize, teaches students how to evaluate the evidence for claims to determine how we know something and recognize the characteristics of good science by evaluating bad science, pseudoscience, and science denial.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/a-life-preserver-for-staying-afloat-in-a-sea-of-misinformation/

James Randi

Most of you know of James Randi.

Here is an “In memoriam” that you might find to be interesting reading.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2021/01/the-amazing-life-and-legacy-of-james-the-amazing-randi/

Center for Inquiry Sues CVS for Fraud

      The Center for Inquiry has filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia on behalf of the general public against drug retailer CVS for consumer fraud over its sale and marketing of useless homeopathic medicines. CFI, an organization advancing reason and science, accused the country’s largest drug retailer of deceiving consumers through its misrepresentation of homeopathy’s safety and effectiveness, wasting customers’ money and putting their health at risk.

Click here to access the official complaint (PDF).

     Homeopathy is an 18th-century pseudoscience premised on the absurd, unscientific notion that a substance that causes a particular symptom is what should be ingested to alleviate it. Dangerous substances are diluted to the point that no trace of the active ingredient remains, but its alleged effectiveness rests on the nonsensical claim that water molecules have “memories” of the original substance. Homeopathic treatments have no effect whatsoever beyond that of a placebo.

Check this out at https://centerforinquiry.org/press_releases/cfi-sues-cvs/ 

CSI's Continued Climate Disgrace

      When in 2007 the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) later renaming itself as the Committee for Scientific Inquiry (CSI) proclaimed a policy of the organization that Global Warming was irrefutable and that humankind was primary cause, we assumed the data must be undeniable.  Nevertheless, even though supported nearly all of CSI's stands, we decided to do a little critical analysis and check the data.
     It was hardly irrefutable.  In fact, serious debate challenging this claim was underway led by some credible, highly-respected climatologists.  It seemed obvious that the premier skeptic organization should be the ideal platform on which to have a meaningful SCIENTIFIC investigation of the FACTS that were becoming government policy. 
      No way! In a completely disgraceful manner CSI only doubled down on its questionable position.
     We don't dispute global warming.  We don't dispute humankind's contribution to global warming.  We are disappointed in CSI abysmal failure to standby the principles of Scientific Inquiry, thereby severely discrediting its work on addressing other significant matters of pseudo-science.
     We had little influence on matters at CSI.  The only way we could protest this failure of the skeptical method and critical thought was to terminate our small financial support.
     Now a decade later CSI adds to its failure to be a credible skeptical organization by announced that Michael Mann had been elected as a 2017 Fellow of CSI. 
     Mann was the topic of the book "A Disgrace to His Profession."  He hardly stands with the likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, B.F. Skinner, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, James Randi, Martin Gardner, and Ray Hyman. Mann only disgraces their legacy and their once skeptical mission.

Why you THINK you See a Ghost

Real X-Files

Okay we'll try this one again.  The last time I transfer the "embed code" from the producers, it disappeared from their website and from our embed.  Their new embed code didn't work any better so we saved a the video to You Tube

http://www.vice.com/video/the-real-x-files

This was featured again in Cause and Effect Newsletter, Issue #46 — December 18, 2015. Cause & Effect is the biweekly newsletter of the Center for Inquiry community.

Loss of Intellectual Integrity

     It’s that time of the year again, when charitable organizations and the like solicit for financial support.  That includes the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.  I am more than inclined to send them a big check similar to what my wife sends to her church, but no matter how much I support the mission of the organization, I am forced to decline.

     Likewise articles in their magazine and related publications, such as eSkeptic, unintentionally reinforce that decision, when I find I am weakening in my resolve.  My problem is the hypocrisy I find in the position these organizations have taken on Climate Change and the continued highly biased and one-sided opinion pieces that both the Committee and the Skeptic Organization publish.

http://mtskeptics.blogspot.com/2015/03/climate-change-statement.html

     Many people with a sincere interest in the facts associated with Climate Change search for the opportunity for a credible debate on this topic.  These organizations could provide the platform, if their official positions were not so blatantly one-sided.  This is not the same as the oft voiced comment by Creationist to “teach the controversy,” where it is an argument of faith verses evidence.  Both sides of the Climate Debate have credible and distinguished scientists.

    To make matters even worse there has been a movement within these organizations to discredit those that challenge some of the extreme positions of global warming from being referred to as Climate Skeptics, as if these organizations had ownership of that identification.

     This week in eSkeptic  http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/15-12-02/  the book review,  Advocatus Diaboli—the Devil’s Advocate by David Priess reminded me of the problem I have with the organization.

     The review opens with the statement

Recognize your assumptions. Question them regularly. Don’t fall prey to mirror-imaging and related mindsets. Avoid cherry-picking to support your preferred hypothesis. Value evidence over belief. Skeptics in diverse fields ranging from the hard sciences to intelligence analysis know these maxims well. But plenty of research has made it clear that only exceptional effort keeps us all from falling prey to the same troublesome mental traits; it’s just plain hard to move beyond mere recognition of critical thinking best practices to actually practicing them best.

The article goes on to discuss experiences in the Catholic Church for the establishment of sainthood.

The book starts by describing the roots of the red team concept in the Roman Catholic Church’s “Devil’s Advocacy” method for vetting the qualifications of potential saints. . . It was thought, would ensure that objectivity served as a brake on rapid rushes to sainthood. . . But it raises the question: Why didn’t the process of challenging superstitions lead to the debunking of all attempts at sainthood?

This mild brake on the system for “confirming” miracles eventually proved too annoying for the faithful. . . .Pope John Paul II in 1983 got rid of the position altogether . . . beatifications and canonizations skyrocketed.

And here is the key sentence summarizing the result of this failure to challenge

 The integrity associated with the process and outcome was negated.

Climate Change Statement

      In the May/June 2007 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (known at that time as the Committee for Scientific Investigation for the Claims of the Paranormal) issued a Position Statement on Global Warming.  It caused quite an uproar among a previously loyal following.  Nevertheless, Middle Tennessee Skeptics chose to evaluate this position statement and not simply to march "lock step" with the country's premiere skeptics organization.  Our goal was to offer EVIDENCE to support this position statement.
     As we examined arguments both pro and con, we found the most often repeated claim that "the science was solid and the debate was over" to be fallacious.  Even to make such a statement about such an immature research topic was preposterous and an embarrassment to the skeptical community.  To make matters even worse, the Skeptical Inquirer has persisted with very one-sided and biased publications with "strawman" arguments demeaning and disrespecting scientists with credible challenges to prevailing theories of anthropogenic global warming.
     Although we continue to purchase the Skeptical Inquirer (which we have for twenty years), we no longer offer financial support as an associate member.  Because of this obvious failing to provide a true skeptical platform for fair debate on this climate change, we likewise question many of the less official positions the Committee has on other topics.
     We have added our position on the Climate Change page of this website.  We have made it our policy to share evidence (not opinion pieces) that challenges prevailing theories on climate change.  The debate is hardly over.  Real science continues to improve our understanding on climate change, so responsible, fair, and balanced policy decisions can be made by political leaders.

The Right Climate Stuff

In an early post I lamented about the absence of an organization to review objectively climate change without a hidden agenda and how CSICOP/CSI has failed in this fundamental duty to which they want everyone to believe they are dedicated.  Well, not all is lost. Here is a paraphrase from the website http://therightclimatestuff.com/ that claims to have tackled that task.

There are competing points of view regarding the causes of climate change in our current environment. One group has concluded that human activities. . . has caused a recent acceleration of a 300 year trend of global warming.  The most prevalent alternative point of view is that natural variations account for most, if not all, of changes in climate. 

We are gathering together a group of highly educated and experienced scientists & engineers from various disciplines to take on the challenge of evaluating the narratives of both the advocates of AGW and also the skeptics of AGW.

A large amount of manpower and money is being spent on an attempt to ameliorate the supposed rise in global temperature.

This study is very difficult because of the extremely complex nature of the physical and chemical interactions between the sun and earth that effect our climate. However, we are encouraged because a number of the members of the study group were successful in using scientific discipline to resolve unusual problems involved in the national effort of early manned spaceflight to achieve the goals of the Apollo Lunar Exploration Program.

The motto of the Mission Evaluation Room engineers is . . . “In God we trust, all others bring data”

Looking For True Skeptical Analysis of Climate Change

In his blog post, Skeptical Inquirer Abandons Reason, Embraces Global Warming, Doug Hoffman summarized my position regarding CSICOP, which I had supported for many years.

I have been an associate member of CSICOP/CSI for many years and have always felt that its activities were important for the well-being of our society. Recently, however, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the contents of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine that has caused me to reevaluate my support for CSI. There seems to be a concerted effort to label people who do not accept the current climate change dogma—put forth by the IPCC and others as “settled science”—as irrational ideologues.

It seems that when the publishing organization of SI changed its name from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) to the Committee for Scientific Investigation more was lost than a number of words—it seems a good deal of integrity was sacrificed as well. I do not intend to renew my membership with this organization and I urge others to critically review their affiliation with CSI.

I have been appalled by the misrepresentation of scientists who do not conform to the so-called "consensus" opinion in articles in Skeptical Inquirer. They demean the meaning of scientific inquiry and can only be referred to as pseudo-skepticism. They undermine the principles upon which many of us once believed for CSICOP.  Since that time I have looked for some organization to conduct an objective examination of both sides of the Climate Change debate.