Further thoughts for the day

UK is growing up: Younger adults are less religious

2012-02-07T20:34:00.001Z

From the annual British Social Attitudes survey:

In 1983, 31% claimed no religious affiliation, now it's 50%, and, as the report says: "This change - which is likely to continue - can be explained by generational replacement, with older, more religious, generations dying out and being replaced by less religious generations. There is little evidence that substantial numbers find religion as they get older."

This is obviously good news, but with undue deference still given to religious ideas, the Faith School Menace and, well, just look at the BHA's campaign list, there is still much to do to get a secular state.

Why we need a secular country, or what Richard Dawkins et al have been saying all along

2012-02-05T16:41:00.001Z

Hayley Stevens is a blogger whom I admire, but haven't met IRL yet*. She's not a fan of alternative medicine and, if she spots a peddler of alternative medicine making claims that fall foul of ASA regulations, she will report them. (I need to take a leaf out of her book - I've a good few leaflets I've taken with the intent of reporting, but have never quite gotten around to doing it).

Reporting dodgy claims, and highlighting dodgy practices (like my four month homeopathy overdose) are ways to combat all the dangerous and ineffective treatments that are out there.

Recently, Hayley reported another such group that were making unsubstantiated claims about how they could heal certain diseases. Hayley made a complaint to the ASA, the ASA upheld it.

Of course, in this instance, the claims weren't to do with extreme dilutions of a substance in water; they weren't to do with the quantum healing energies of Depak Chopra's bank balance; nor ancient medical wisdom from an age when living to the ripe old age of 40 was pretty good going. No, these claims were to do with prayer. So now it's not an issue of a group simply not following advertising regulations, it's a ban on "expressing beliefs" or a freedom of speech issue.

It's funny how this kind of reaction hasn't happened when other quacks, charlatans and peddlers of alternative medicine have been taken to task.

Religion shouldn't get any special privilege in this country (or anywhere), and should stick to the regualtions that are out there. If you think the regulations are wrong, then by all means say why they are wrong and campaign to change them. However, it's not fair to say "I beleive prayer works and so do lots of other people" and hope that that works, as a crystal healer can say "I beleive that my rose tinted quartz works, and so do lots of other people".

Being religious doesn't make you a special case and doesn't deserve any special deference. Much like many of us Militant Atheists (TM) have been saying all along.
*except once being on the same train and totally blanking her as I was buying a car and then had to get to Yeovil for a wetsuit. Since Sam Harris's Lying, I feel I need to clarify little statements like that.

Poor form BBC! Don't spread creationism from America!

2012-02-05T00:25:00.001Z

An otherwise good article on the BBC was spoilt by this table:

The data comes from the Population Reference Bureau based in the USA. As you see, they have the human population starting with two individuals. This is not the case. Human population size has never been smaller than 1,200 individuals.

Alas, in America, acceptance of evolution is painfully low. A recent poll had it as low as 16%. Rejection of evolution is in America, and elsewhere, is usually because of religion (that same poll has 38% beleiving in God guided evolution, 40% believing humans were created by God in their present form).

Religion has spoilt things again - a discussion on the population bottleneck would be interesting but possibly longer than that article allows. But at least getting the table right might lead people to find out more about our origins.

UPDATE: Over at Reddit a good point was made:

LordBritish wrote:

"Alas, in America, acceptance of evolution is painfully low. A recent poll had it as low as 16%. Rejection of evolution is in America, and elsewhere, is usually because of religion (that same poll has 38% beleiving in God guided evolution, 40% believing humans were created by God in their present form)."So really acceptance of evolution in America is at 54%.

This isn't the case. Believing that God has directed evolution means that you've not quite understood evolution. Evolution is entirely unguided - it's a process that carries on, but their is no destination in sight.

Mars is retrograde

2012-01-23T18:41:00.002Z

I had the misfortune to hear the astrology on Steve Wright's show today. From this I learnt that Mars is in retrograde again, so it's not all bad. It irked me that Russel Grant, today's astrologer, kept saying the planet was going backwards. It's doing nothing of the sort, but it does look like it is, as shown here by the great Astronomy Picture of the Day team:

The fact that it looks like it's going backwards in the sky has nothing to do with how you should live your life, or that you should really save making decisions until Easter.

What this apparent backwards motion is doing is giving us evidence that the Earth, and other planets, orbit the Sun. This was one of the pieces of evidence Copernicus put forward when he argued against the notion that everything orbits the Earth. Here's a handy video to explain:

As a species we have been, and still are I would say, quite arrogant about our status in the Universe. As Carl Sagan said:

"It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

Given that there are probably hundreds of billions of planets in our galaxy alone, there really is nothing special about Earth, except what we make of it.

When atheists get offended...

2012-01-20T02:05:00.001Z

Recent events made me think back to when some adverts were seen on the sides of London buses. They directed you to a website, which said that atheists (well, those that "exchanged the truth of God for a lie"), and (of course) homosexuals, deserve to die.

A rather offensive message, some might say, myself included.

How did we, the Militant New Atheists respond?

Did we threaten the lives of those associated with the buses the ads were on?

Did we complain the were un-atheist?

Did we riot and kill people?

No. We got together, raised over £150,000 and made our own ads to express our own message.

You can't go through life with out getting offended, and, if you do - it's much better to attack the idea than those who hold it.

In the words of Han Solo...

2012-01-18T23:49:00.000Z

"Great kid! Don't get cocky!"

Some great news came out today: A vaccine for the most common strain of meningitis causing bacteria in the UK (meningococcal group B) came a step closer today following a study published in The Lancet, the results of which were promising enough for the Joint Committee on Vaccine and Immunisation (JCVI) to consider the vaccine for introduction in the UK.

This is *wonderful* news, don't get me wrong, but the Han Solo reference relates to a potential bad side to this announcement, exemplified by this quote from the Telegraph:

"Meningitis B is the last remaining form of the disease that occurs in Britain for which there is no vaccine."

This sadly isn't true. Viral meningitis can be caused by a great many viruses. Some of these, for example mumps virus, have vaccines. But many do not. There is also fungal meningitis, which is considerably rarer (tending to affect those with compromised immune systems).

Even with a men B vaccine, there will still be thousands of cases of meningitis a year. The faster meningitis is treated, the more likely you'll get through it (by not dying), and without brain damage, a missing limb, or some other nasty after effect. So, let's celebrate this news, but remember the signs and symptoms of meningitis, because it's never going to be entirely eradicated.

Thank you for reading this far, really, please do go and check up on the signs and symptoms of meningitis. That link could literally save your life.

Teachers' misconceptions of science

2012-01-11T19:23:00.000Z

I went to the Association of Science Education Annual Conference in Liverpool.

The inital speaker for the talk "Misconceptions in Physics Teachers" didn't turn up. Alas, I don't know his name, but there was an excellent stand in who gave a talk. He mentioned two common misconceptions.

Firstly:

The model that we teach for particles in science syllabi is like this (from BBC Bitesize):

Now, imagine a 50p piece. What happens when it gets cold? It shrinks.

Now, if the particles have no space to move into, how does the coin shrink? The atoms themselves would have to get smaller.

This is a problem with the model used above, the so called "ball model". It's easier when thinking of the "cloud model" where the edge of an atom isn't defined, and is based on probability. In this model, electron clouds can overlap. This could be what's happening as the coin shrinks. Or it could be that the atoms themselves do change size. However, as the speaker understood it, what's actually happening is up for debate (though he came down on the side of the atoms changing sides).

The misconception here is thinking of atoms as having fixed boundries, and not recognising the limiatations of the model used.

The second misconception was dissolving salt:

The speaker had witnessed a girl adding 60 cc of salt to 200 cc of water (1cc of water = 1ml). The final volume after the salt had dissolved was 240 cc, not 260.

The explanation given was that the salt crystals had moved in between the gaps in the water moelcules. This is a commonly given answer, and one that often gets taught. However, it is wrong.

The speaker, having his doubts, carried out the experiment himself, with salt. He noticed, when the water gets added to the salt, air bubbles escaped. He tried this again, but this time with sand, which doesn't dissolve. Sure enough, he got the same result. The decrease in expected volume is actually down to air escaping from inbetween the salt/sand, and not because particles are fitting in between gaps in water particles.

What he found most interesting though, with both of these, is that many teachers often get angry when presented with their misconceptions. "But it's in the text book" they'll say.

The take home message for me is to be more aware of the limitations of the models used in science teaching, and to try and root out any misconceptions I may hold.

I resolve never to lie again, a thought on Sam Harris' Lying and a possible freebie

2012-01-10T20:32:00.000Z

I've just finished reading Lying by Sam Harris, and would strongly advise you to do the same.

In it he (successfully to me at least) argues that lying, even white lies, are things to be avoided.

It only costs £2, well worth the investment* and you need only set aside 45 minutes reading time (and probably a bit of thinking time after).

I generally think of myself as a very honest person. However, following reading this, I going to take up Sam Harris and resolve to not lie again. I hope that I don't find this too much of a challenge!

The only caveat I can think of with white lies is when using them to surprise someone. I once lied about going for a run, so that I could pay a surprise visit to my (not at the time) ex. The deceit allowed me the time to drive and not reply to texts etc. which I would otherwise do. However, I think this falls into a category not mentioned by Harris - telling a lie, but with the ultimate aim of revealing the deceit later. Of course Walter Scott is right when he says "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!" - would these kind of lies make it easier to tell lies in general? Are these the only lies worth telling? I don't know. It's easy to think of how the potential negatives from this deceit (imagine that there had been a car crash and I had died - my last communication would have been a lie. This may be an extreme, but it's well within the realms of possibility) could out weigh any positives

*If you email me, I can send it to you for free. Sam Harris says he's happy for digital/physical copies to be shared with others, but does ask that if you received your copy for free, that you buy your own copy before passing yours on. You might also like to read "The future of the book" from Sam Harris' blog.

Some science iPhone apps (and an Android app) I like (and are free)

2012-01-06T18:51:00.000Z

When I got my iPhone the first app I went searching for was a periodic table. This was before checking out other features of the phone. This is probably another symptom of science geekery. Anyhow, I thought I'd share some of the science based iPhone apps that I've found:

ChemTouch - A wonderful, interactive periodic table*, with *loads* of info. Also comes with info o amino acids and nucleotides.

Cosmic - From the American Museum of Natural History, a mosaic of some astronomical photos, that make up a mosaic of Saturn.

Dinosaurs - again from the American Museum of Natural History, a big bunch of dinosaur/fossil photos that make up a T. Rex mosaic, and a load of info about a number of different dinosaurs. Like the above, but for dinosaurs.

Exoplanets - info on exoplanets. All of them.

Mars - A globe of Mars, with loads of info on terrain, our exploration of it and the people involved. (I've actually got the £0.69 HD version).

Molecules - 3D models of molecules you rotate and zoom in on. Comes with a few, and you can download more, or create your own!

Moon - Moon equivalent of the Mars one above. I also splashed out on the £0.69 version.

TimeTree - defo a must have. Input any two living things, and find out when they shared a common ancestor, and the evidence for the estimate.

Alas, I couldn't find the above for Android.

Also, having helped (a bit. A very small bit) with the Meningitis Trust's Android and iPhone apps, I can't resist another chance to plug them. Loads of info on the signs and symptoms of meningitis (which can be confused with the flu or a hangover). The info in this app could save your life.

Please suggest any other good apps below!

*On that subject, I highly recommend "The Disappearing Spoon" by Sam Kean.

100 questions for the Christian believer

2012-01-06T18:04:00.001Z

Piet was kind enough to drop by ask "To promote skepticism/critical thinking I wrote some questions for the Christian believer. Are you able to put the link to these questions at your blog".

Well, I'm happy to oblige, but...

Whilst I applaud the promotion of skepticism and critical thinking, I'm not sure how effective they will be, and don't really like the approach myself. The tactic is rather similar to creationists.

Years ago (before I discovered capoeira) I used to debate creationists online. Well, initially I'd respond to a genuine question regarding evolution. It was fun - I'd get to research and write an essay on some aspect of evolutionary biology. However, what would often happen would be that a creationist would come in, use copy and paste, and post over 100 questions/links to answers in genesis/some other creationist waffle.

It's not possible to answer all of those questions/points thoughtfully, or fully. If you don't answer them all, then the creationist will go "Ah ha! You couldn't answer this, therefore I'm right". You can't win.

Likewise, those questions are set up in a similar fashion, no Christian has the time to answer them all properly. I didn't even have time to read them all. They can't win.

I'm all for asking questions of believers (and for them to ask questions of me). But I'm not convinced this is the best way.

However, you can make up your own mind here:

The original questions
http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8382
The translation
http://www.freethinker.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=10033

"Militant" agnosticism

2011-12-30T23:45:00.001Z

I don't like the phrase militant atheist - what's the worst we've done? Near as I can tell, it's to voice strong opinions, blog and write books. However, if those things make one militant, then we have found a militant agnostic.

In discussions relating to PZ Myers' post on Painter's Law, Simon made the following statement:

I do not care if there is a god or not because by the very definitions and as stated by the prophet Dawkins it is impossible to prove there is no god so it is unlikely I will ever know. You have your belief that there is no god, others have a belief that there is a god and I choose not to have an opinion on the matter, I lack concern however the topic does interest me so I am hardly apathetic.

Simon will not make his mind up on the issue, but will insist on voicing his opinions about it, strongly.

Does the Pope watch House?

2011-12-30T15:23:00.000Z

Whilst I'm on the subject of Catholicism, this is quite funny.

The Pope in his Christmas Homily:

"if we want to find the God who appeared as a child, then we must dismount from the high horse of our “enlightened” reason."

Hat tip to Jerry Coyne.

Why I despise the Catholic Church especially

2011-12-30T11:56:00.003Z

As you probably know, I generally think religion, on the whole, does more harm than good for society, which is why I am opposed to it. That’s another discussion. This is why I especially despise the Catholic Church. (Here I must add it is the Catholic Church as an organisation, not necessarily individuals who count themselves as Catholic).

The Catholic Church's worldwide, systematic raping of children, and the cover up of this that they perpetrated is the main reason that I hate the Catholic Church so much.

I know that it is not a prerequisite of becoming a Catholic clergyman to be a peadophile, and that, of the clergy the vast majority are not peadophiles (just under 10% of ordained priests from 1970 onwards were peadophiles, based on the Vatican's own reports). However, the reason I hold the entire organisation accountable is due to how they dealt with the problem: They utterly failed the children in their care when they discovered what was going on.

Here I quote Sam Harris from the The Moral Lanscape (footnote 14 of chapter 1):

“The evidence suggests that the misery of these children was facilitated and concealed by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church at every level, up to and including the prefrontal cortex of the current pope. In his former capacity as Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict personally oversaw the Vatican’s response to reports of sexual abuse in the Church. What did this wise and compassionate man do upon learning that his employees were raping children by the thousands? Did he immediately alert the police and ensure that the victims would be protected from further torments? One still dares to imagine such an efflugence of basic human sanity might have been possible, even within the Church. On the contrary, repeated and increasingly desperate complaints of abuse were set aside, witnesses were pressured into silence, bishops were praised for their defiance of secular authority, and offending priests were relocated only to destroy fresh lives in unsuspecting parishes. It is no exaggeration to say that for decades (if not centuries) the Vatican has met the formal definition of a criminal organization devoted – not to gambling, prostitution, drugs, or any other venal sin – but to the sexual enslavement of children.”

Take this case:

“In 1979, an 11-year-old German boy identified as Wilfried F. was taken on a vacation trip to the mountains by a priest. After that, he was administered alcohol, locked in his bedroom, stripped naked, and forced to suck the penis of his confessor. (Why do we limit ourselves to calling this sort of thing "abuse"?) The offending cleric was transferred from Essen to Munich for "therapy" by a decision of then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, and assurances were given that he would no longer have children in his care. But it took no time for Ratzinger's deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, to return him to "pastoral" work, where he soon enough resumed his career of sexual assault.”

Ratzinger's crimes do not stop there:

"Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)"

The peadophiles were discovered, not stopped, and were able to move from parish to parish raping children as they went, and those in the know were discouraged from getting the police involved.

Not one parish in Belgium escaped this abuse. Indeed, when the Belgian police raided the Catholic HQ in Belgium as part of their investigations, they were criticised by the Vatican. In Ireland, the abuse of boys (but not girls) was endemic. The problem isn’t isolated to a few countries, it’s world wide. This graph shows the confirmed cases of sexual abuse by American Catholic priests (of which about 4,000 have happened whilst I've been alive):

It’s impossible to know the entire toll worldwide, but it’s a six figure sum. It might even have hit 100,000 in the US alone (and that's not the highest estimate).

The scope of this is horrific and nauseating.

Of course, I have other objections, but I've written about them before, as have others (do read that link), and right now I've had quite enough writing about this profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution.

The human mind being what it is, we tend to care more about individuals than large numbers of people, so I’ll leave you with this:

An apology to my Catholic friends

2011-12-30T11:56:00.002Z

Reading Sam Harris’s (so far excellent) The Moral Landscape, I was reminded of the horrific Catholic child abuse, which made me angry. I needed to vent this anger, and tweeted:

“Honestly doesn't know how decent human beings can call themselves Catholic following their Church's worldwide institutionalised child rape”

My lack of skill composing that tweet led people to think I was saying things like:

1. Calling yourself Catholic means you condone child abuse.
2. You can’t be a decent human being and be a Catholic.
3. That it seemed I was saying child abuse was part of the Catholic faith.

Had I thought that any of those things could be inferred from my tweet, I would not have written it, as I do not mean any of them. However, those things and more were inferred, and I must apologise for my poor communication which led to my insulting people.

What I was trying to say was (quite naively) that:

I know a fair few Catholics whom I am very fortunate to have (I hope it’s still present tense) as friends. They are great people.

The Catholic Church on the other hand is, in my opinion, so utterly repulsive that I couldn’t equate how these fantastic people could associate with such an organisation, my thinking being, “Can’t they ditch the word Catholic, but still worship the Holy Trinity, so as to keep their faith, but sever any association with the Catholic Church as an organisation?”

Of course not. As Ben Goldacre reminds us with many things, it’s a little more complicated than that.

So I’m sorry for insulting you with my tweet, but I do hope you can at least understand where I was coming from when I composed it.

Creationism in the UK

2011-11-21T20:48:00.000Z

Creationism is, thankfully, not as big an issue in the UK as it is in the States.

But we shouldn't get complacent. As the BHA have recently posted:

Creationist groups are continuing to push for Free Schools

Free Schools don't have to teach the National Curriculum, and there are groups that are trying to set up schools, such that they can teach their anti-science dogma in science lessons.

Please sign this e-petition "Teach evolution, not creationism"

This has always been an important issue for me, but more so as I embark on a career in science education.

I'm not dead yet!

2011-11-07T20:41:00.000Z

Just resting!

(Two Python references for the price of one).

I've started a PGCE, which for those that don't know is a Post Graduate Certificate in Education. It's the qualification I need to be a sciecne teacher. Alas, it's incredibaly work heavy, and I've justh ad no time for this blog.

On top of that, before this blog, I wanted to write about a few things, but then spent my time keeping on top of various other things, like the revelations of Johann Hari's plagarism and elevator gate and I didn't have the time to write anything. I do miss the blog, and will blog again, but no idea when.

Given it's been so many month's I really don't know if I have any regular readers any more, but if any of you do occasionally pop back to see what became of me, well, now you know.

I daresay when I come back there will be considerably more posts about science and education...

I dare you not to smile at this

2011-07-06T12:03:00.003+01:00

SITP LOLCAT

2011-06-29T12:46:00.001+01:00

Whilst you're here, you should check out the intelligent and funny Iszi Lawrence on the Sunday Supplement, and also get yourself some of the finest skeptical apparel available from Neil Davies (talented illustrator of many things, including Skeptic Trumps)

Irrational me

2011-06-24T12:19:00.001+01:00

I read Hayley's Irrational Me post, and thought "I do some of those, but don't think they're irrational"

"- I say ‘bless you’ when people sneeze, despite there being no plague right now, and despite not being religious."

I just do this as it seems to me a polite social convention - I say thank you if it's said to me (despite on occasion being admonished as this kills fairies apparently). I'm aware of it's irrational origins, but think it's nice to be polite.

"- I cross my fingers for luck" and also "- I wish people luck."

These are linked. I wish people good luck, not because I think it will improve their luck, to me it means "I hope you do well", likewise, if I cross my fingers it means I'm signaling the same sentiments with my hands. I'll also say "Keep my fingers crossed for you" or similar - again that's the same as wishing someone luck.

Of course, my understanding of what I'm doing, and someone else's when they see me are different things, which is a good thing to bear in mind.

"- I say “jesus christ!” “Holy moses!” “for gods sake!” “go to hell!” “What in the name of God!” “for my sins” when I’m not religious" Whilst these exact phrases aren't things I regualrly say, there are similar things. Are they irrational though? Our speech is peppered with many references, not just from religion (the Bible enriches English I think, for example), but also literature - just think of Shakespeare. I don't think phrases with irrational origins are necessarily irrational.

You're very welcome to disagree, and say that all of the above actions are irrational foibles of mine.

This is what I regard as my only irrational trait: I support Man Utd. When they win, I am happy, when they lose I am sad. I don't even come from Manchester, but when at school (nearly 20 years ago!) a friend did, and he supported United. Not having a football team to support, and it being a necessity of the playground, Man Utd were the team for me. But supporting a football, or indeed any sports team, in this way, is totally irrational.

So skeptics, pop over to Hayley's blog and let her know your irrational habits, if you have any.

If I was God...

2011-06-24T12:04:00.001+01:00

http://thebloodandthunderclub.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-i-was-god.html

Bigotry 0 Equality 1 (AET)

2011-06-21T18:14:00.000+01:00

"The charity Catholic Care has been refused permission to appeal against a ruling that it cannot exclude gay couples from using its adoption service."

This is great news!

Jesus and Mo (again) nicely sum up the attitutde that Catholic Care have had:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2011/06/14/death2/

Gratuitous swimwear shot!

2011-06-21T13:08:00.001+01:00

It strikes me as a shame that it is worth pointing (see Pharyngula, Why Evolution Is True and Blag Hag) out that the winner of Miss USA is pro-evolution. I'm glad that she is, and hope that the position increases opportunities for those unaware of, or fearful of, evolution, to find out more about it; but that it has to be pointed out, whereas beliefs such as the world being round; heliocentricism and that the Moon isn't made of cheese. It's basic stuff, but, alas, religious ideology is keeping it down. Apparently only 2 of the Miss USA contestants supported evolution, and one of those won. Hopefully a sign of progress. Plenty left to do though:

Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto (2006) "Public Acceptance of Evolution" Science Aug 11 2006: 765-766.

Any way, can't exactly talk about Miss USA with out a swimwear shot:

I decided to spare you my nipples.

Why does it matter?

2011-06-20T13:07:00.003+01:00

Yesterday for Father's Day we went on a National Trust organised walk around Stonehenge landscape, which was awesome.

This is a real neolithic stone knife/scraper, andI am holding it:

It's about 6,000 years old. In the car park there are some markers in the car park which show the location of holes for posts, whose wood chippings were dated to 10,000 years old.

Recently, Original Cindy asked:
Without discussing my own views does anyone care to tell me why anyone is caring if someone is a creationist or not?

There are lots of reasons why I care if someone is a creationist or not, and this is one of them.

Young Earth Creationists aren't able to appreciate how awesome that place is - I held in my hand something that's about as old as they believe the entire universe is. It was a tool that helped someone stay alive back then. It may look like just a stone, but that's the beginning of technology, that stone, forgive the pun, was cutting edge.

Look how far we've come!

There are whole avenues of awesome that are forever closed to someone who can't change their Young Earth Creationist world view. And that's a great shame.

Dear skeptics, you don't need to be a PZ to make a difference!

2011-06-15T13:46:00.001+01:00

I have some great news!

I'm a capoeira obsessive, and obviously ended up mentioning it in my SITP talk at some point. Through considerably less than six degrees of separation, one of the audience (hello if you're reading!), mentioned that she'd seen this talk from a guy that did capoeira, to one of my capoeirista friends, who then asked if it was me, as I was (unsurprisingly) the first that sprang to mind.

The great thing is that, so I'm told, she's "into alternative medicine and stuff like that" but that she's re-assesing how she thinks about them. This is great, and the best possible thing I could have heard about the talk! It was, so I'm told, down to my clear, plain arguments.

Now it's true that very small fry like myself don't have any significant fraction of the impact of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or PZ Myers when it comes to addressing issues of skepticism etc, but it all does make a difference. So, if you, dear reader, would class yourself as very small fry as well, and wonder if you're having any impact in tackling pseudoscience and such, then take heart, as it's probably more than you think, and it all adds up!

As I've mentioned capoeira, I'll leave you with an interview about capoeira I did on Radio 2 in the hope that I can have a bit more of an impact in the regard too ; )

Homeopahtic overdose done and dusted, what should I do next?

2011-06-02T13:08:00.000+01:00

Well, Tuesday's talk went well, thanks for all the compliments. As for the video recording, less so. The batteries ran out - alas, I thought it charged off a USB, but actually the FlipCam I had takes old fashioned double As.

So, my Boots Insomnia pill were a combination remedy with the following: Kalium Bromatum, Coffea Cruda, Passiflora Incarnata, Avena Sativa, Alfalfa and Valeriana Officinalis.

As the links show, each of these have numerous symptoms. The closest we can get to an actual match is from the Alfalfa:

Abdomen.--Bloated. Hysterical cramps. Thin, watery diarrhœa, with lumps of coagulated milk, with violent screaming in children. Greenish, papescent, bloody stool. Spasms in bowels after food and at night in bed.

Of all the symptoms to get a close match it obviously had to be the diarrhoea.

Now, there are well over 50 possible symptoms, and that I got only one of these, once, after also eating a discounted chicken dish, over the course of four months further adds to my certainty, that when it comes to homeopathy, there's nothing in it.

What have I learnt? Homeopaths don't like facing up to criticism; fail to take a holistic approach when it comes to evidence; and that, answering Martin Robbin's article that started this all off, they are not, as a community, mature and capable enough to look at the evidence and reach a consensus.

I am waiting to hear, following a question at Skeptics in the Pub, how homeopaths get pure water with which to make homeopathic remedies.

So, there we go, thanks to everyone for their support. Now to find another project. I'm going to see if I can find the time to do an Alpha Course, failing that, am open to suggestions. What other woo shall I do and blog about?

In other news, this is happening tonight, I might be able to get to it after capoeira training. It would be quite fun to ask about homopathic overdosing...

Homeopathy overdose: The Big Reveal

2011-05-31T12:59:00.000+01:00

So, I've still not posted what symptoms I *should* have had from the homeopathic insomnia pills I had.

Well...

I'm not going to tell you!

All will be revealed at tonight Skeptics in the Pub Cheltenham, which I'll hopefully pop on to You Tube.

In the mean time, let's watch Crispian Jago again:

Agency

2011-05-18T13:22:00.001+01:00

This is the Pause for Thought from yesterday's Chris Evan's show:

From Canon Ann Easter, Chief Executive of a Charity and Chaplain to the Queen:

"Last week, I told you the story of my first grand piano and how it got stuck on the stairs! I sold that piano after a while and bought a lovely modern upright, but my children never forgave me.

Fast forward to August 1997 and I was all ready to do my bit on Radio 2 when the phone rang at about 5 o'clock in the morning and it was my producer telling me the shocking news that Diana, Princess of Wales, had died in a terrible accident and asking if I’d be able to stay for the whole programme, instead of the half hour or so that I usually do. So that’s what I did.
But when the time came to leave Broadcasting House, I couldn’t go out the usual way as the press were all there, so I went the back way and found myself standing in front of a staff notice board and there, singing out to me, was a card which said ‘Grand Piano for sale’ and I just knew I’d got to have it.

And when I saw and heard that magnificent instrument which belonged to a Music teacher and composer whose poor arthritic hands were so painful that he could no longer play it, although I already had a piano and despite the fact that I didn’t have the money, I heard myself saying ‘I’ll take it’.

Three weeks after I got it home, my dear Dad collapsed and was rushed to hospital where he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and we spent the next few months looking after him. As my work was nearby, I’d be with him 2, sometimes 3, times a day and when I finally got home, I’d cry a lot then bash hell out of the piano. Very loudly.

It was a great privilege to look after my Dad but it was without doubt the most difficult time of my life and I’m sure that that piano was a gift from God to me to help me get through it.
I reckon that, whatever life throws at us, God is there with us and one way or another, God gives us the wherewithal, the encouragement, the support, to cope.
It’s up to us to notice God’s gift – and make the most of it!"

Rather neatly, this is the latest Jesus and Mo:

Just saying.

Heavens above!

2011-05-17T18:05:00.000+01:00

I'm sure we're all aware of Stephen Hawking's recent quote when asked "You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?" in the Grauniad:

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."

I have since heard criticism of this from Christians, for example over at Original Cindy.

I find this criticism confusing though. How on the one hand is Hawking being arrogant, presuming to know that which we can not know and forcing his beliefs down people throats; when, the people criticising him believe in a very specific sub-set of myths, namely, Christianity. Surely any one that lays those claims at Hawking must be an agnostic? They can't presume to know which of the many and mutually contradictory religions are true.

Also, I hardly think expressing one's opinion when asked it is forcing beliefs down the throats of others. Likewise, in writing this blog I am airing my opinions and am in no way trying to shove them down Original Cindy's (or anyone else's) throats, and welcome opposing views in the comments. However, in terms of shoving opinions down throats, I don't think it can be claimed that secular, atheist types are any worse than the religious. I've never encountered any one on the street preaching the words of Grayling.

So why is it fair to say that heaven doesn't exist, and that it is a fairy tale?

Well, you can read this from Johan Hari which is loads better than what I can write, or you can carry on.

It seems ridiculous to me to think that we are anything more than the biochemistry going on in our bodies. Witness how people can change with drugs, a head injury, or an especially traumatic event. On top of that, the conditions of nearly dying and the resultant "near death" experiences can be explained in terms of what's happening biochemically, and can even be replicated with drugs.

All that we are is dependent on a mix of our experiences, the genes we were born with and our health. (You're welcome to lump health in to experiences).

It's easy to think of our mind being separate from our bodies, but as we've just touched on, our mind is totally down to the physical things that are happening to us. So it seems implausible that there's any sort of soul, just biochemistry. But it's pretty neat biochemistry, and it makes me very excited (so excited that at uni I ended up not going down the physiology path with my degree as I intended when I started, but chose nutritional biochemistry).

Saying that we are just biochemistry, to me, doesn't diminish any of the awesomeness that is being alive.

But surely, you might say, there's that special something about us that makes us "alive", can't that be a candidate for going off to an afterlife?

Well, I don't think so. Life arose out of non-living chemicals. How, we're not sure, but it's being worked on, and this is a reasonably plausible idea (better with sound, but not essential):

Those chemicals that made the jump from being not alive to alive, well, that reaction is going on - we are (and this is really cool), the latest part of a 3.7 billion year old chain of survivors.

Being alive is awesome. Enjoy it, here, now. It's the only life we're 100% sure we've got, and it's almost certainly the only one we'll ever have.

Up there with Iran

2011-05-17T17:15:00.000+01:00

Well, today's proposals for the House of Lords reform were to keep us as one of two countries that reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey.

Thankfully, Nick Clegg's plans to "modernise" the House of Lords did include rumors of an imam and the Chief Rabbi that haven't come through, but today's proposals still make the House horribly out of date.

The plans are to reduce the number of Lords, but, unelected Bishop's are still to be kept, and proportionally, in greater number - currently they make up 3%, but the new plans would have them at 4%.

I'd urge you to visit the BHA page and join in on their work to reform the House of Lords.

Dear every nutritionist in the world, please see this

2011-05-11T17:17:00.002+01:00

The great Information is Beautiful has updated their snake oil balloon diagram, showing the evidence for various health supplements:

What's great about it is that it's dynamic, being updated by straight from a google doc, so if you have quibbles, or new evidence to add, then do!

Hox genes - all you need to know

2011-05-10T12:37:00.000+01:00

I'm voting yes to AV and this is why...

2011-04-27T13:15:00.000+01:00

I was going to write out my reasons, but this excellent blog post basically does it better:

http://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/is-av-better-than-fptp/

Succinctly: AV is the proportional representation I want, but it's probably our only stab at electoral reform, which we dearly need (assuming you want our Government to reflect the will of the electorate), so, whilst not perfect AV seems a step in the right direction, and is certainly a step needed before we have a truly proportional system.

Charities and woo

2011-04-27T12:36:00.001+01:00

Regular readers will know that as well as being all skeptical, another one of my "things" is helping charities*. Alas, I was thus concerned when a friend alerted me to this in the MSRC newsletter:

Homeopathy

Homeopathy is based on the principle that ‘like cures like’. Highly diluted substances are used, usually in tablet form or drops. The Homeopath will ask a number of very detailed questions to make up a concise case history of you. This will look at the whole person, including personality, temperament, state of mind and lifestyle, before choosing remedies tailor-made to the individual.

Substances are taken which trigger the body’s healing mechanisms. A past condition can resurface and manifest itself in a mild form for a short time. Some substances would be quite poisonous in their undiluted state but they are so dilute that they cannot be detected in the normal way. They are thought to work through cellular memory at a vibrational level.

In MS, Homeopathy may help lessen fatigue, increase energy, warm up cold extremities and help to detoxify the body.

To find out more about Homeopathy or to find your nearest practitioner please click below:

[ The Society Of Homeopaths ]

Rather coincidently, this story cropped up in Third Sector news today as well:

Health charity criticised by Advertising Standards Authority

Regulator tells the Maperton Trust to stop claiming that a £19 badge will repel head lice

The holistic health charity the Maperton Trust has been reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for claiming a badge with a picture of a unicorn on it could repel head lice.

I've mentioned before about how it's sometimes possible to promote religion by accident: when a religious charity doesn't make it obvious that one of their main goals in the promotion of a religion when they set up an appeal. It certainly looks like the same can happen with quack treatments - whilst the Merton Trust may be quite explicit for their support of things that don't work, well, unless you follow this reasoning to get your evidence:

While conventional medicines concentrate on the physical structures and functions, alternative and complementary medicine is holistic in nature considering optimum health as a balance in the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual states. This difference makes comparing conventional with non conventional systems of health care extremely difficult. We feel that comparing the satisfaction of the receivers of health care offers a way forward and our trials were based on what the patient said their problems were and what they thought after treatment.

Other health charities it appears will support quack remedies too. I must confess, that when I look at a charity to see if I want to give my time or money to it, I won't search for quackery, but now I will. MRSC for example has a page for especially for woo. This disappoints me.

So the lesson I have learnt today, and hope to pass on to you is that, if you don't want to promote bogus treatments, search for them on a charity's web page first, just to make sure. Charities may well be doing good, but there are lots of charities around, and if I want to give my time and money, I want it to go to charities that will make the most of it, and don't waste their time with rubbish.

Thankfully, the excellent charity Sense About Science, and the newly formed (but not a charity as far as I know) Nightingale Collaboration are on hand to help fight the good fight against nonsense, and I would encourage you to support them.

*the main reason I'm big into helping charities is that, quite idealistically, I feel they are one of the best ways to help make a positive difference in the world. For example, I have no medical training, but can help fight diseases like meningitis, by running a marathon etc.

Capoeira and the London Marathon

2011-04-08T15:47:00.001+01:00

Tempting...

2011-03-31T18:24:00.000+01:00

A "psychic" is getting buried alive for PC David Rathband's Blue Lamp Foundation, which supports those in the emergency services injured in the line of duty. Whislt the fundraising is good, and i hope he raises a lot, he could easily increase it by $1,000,000 simply by showing that he is a genuine psychic and not a fraud.

Leaving that aside, I think we should club together, as:

To help raise money for this charity , we are looking for Companies who would like to sponsor the coffin, by buying graphic space, this will also give the companies taking part in the sponsorship brilliant advertising as well as helping a very worth while cause...

Let's get Paranormality on there!

I survived!

2011-03-31T17:16:00.002+01:00

Well, my four month homeopathy overdose is done, and I survived. If you're any where near Cheltenham, you may wish to come to my talk for Skeptics in the Pub.

Relatedly, I saw this post on the Refractive Index blog via David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent), which is a good little summary of the ways twitter can be used.

Previously, I'd been aware that James Delingpole is a climate change denier, but didn't know about his thoughts on homeopathy. Without a trace of irony, he criticised skeptics for "grotesque, self-aggrandising aura of smugness". This from a man who describes himself as "I'm lovely and right about everything", and who, in the same article, goes on to assert:

Furthermore, to attempt such an argument constitutes the most sublime hypocrisy. AGW is the most expensive unproven hypothesis in the history of science. Wiser heads – such as the new intake at the US House of Representatives, a majority of whom have voted to withdraw funding from the IPCC because it is so heavily politicised and devoid of scientific credibility – are increasingly cognizant of this uncomfortable truth. Not a shred of convincing empirical evidence has yet been produced to show that human CO2 emissions pose any kind of serious threat to the health of the planet.

Let's get this clear, James Delingpole is wrong, ADW is something to worry about, and, all the arguments I have heard from climate change deniers thus far are nicely countered here (this includes those in Delingpole's piece).

Unfortunately, some people aren't as amenable to reason as others, and as the Refractive Index blog shows, when David Allen Green asks, quite reasonably:

And gets this in reply:

We can see just where the issue with tone is (amongst many other things).

The Society of Homeopath's response

2011-03-25T13:20:00.001Z

Here is the Society of Homeopath's response to my complaint:

One quick point: When I posted about registering a complaint, it was a good while before I sent the letter. I double checked to make sure I did as the Society of Homeopaths said, and they said to send the letter recorded delivery, and it took me a week or too to get to get to the Post Office. Their response was actually quite quick.

My complaint focused on these parts of their Key Principles and Practices:

1.1 Put the individual needs of the patient first.
1.3 Treat everyone fairly, respectfully, sensitively and appropriately without discrimination.
1.4 Work to foster and maintain the trust of individual patients and the public.
1.5 Listen actively and respect the individual patient’s views and their right to personal choice.
1.6 Encourage patients to take responsibility for their own health, through discussion and provision of information.
1.13 Respond promptly and constructively to concerns, criticisms and complaints. - Ignored completely.

Of course, as their response shows, they have a get out clause: if they doubt your seriousness and sincerity, they can ignore all of the above.

I must admit to feeling hard done by - if the Society thinks that what I'm doing merits me seeing a registered homeopath, then why is it that their members are free to disagree with their official body, and ignore me?

Whilst I disagree that homeopathy works, they think that homeopathy does work, and therefore they must think that, as a healthy individual, I'll be putting my health at risk. Thus, they show a complete and total disregard for my health.

Or, of course, they actually know it's all BS, and are just in it for the money, so obviously are unconcerned.

Not just that, but what of the health of others? I'm sure most of us will have seen the "Don't drive or operate heavy machinery" warnings on medications. I'm healthy, and taking an insomnia treatment - my sleep will be affected (if we assume homeopathy works). If they gave this the thought I have, are they not worried that when I drive (operating heavy machinery is always a risk, I am unqualified), am I endangering other road users? Granted, they don't know if I drive - but it would have been good to get some generic advice like this.

To finish the letter "We do not wish to enter into further correspondence with you on this matter" just says it all really.

About the Society of Homeopaths:

"Our vision is ‘homeopathy for all’ and we aim to achieve this both by supporting our membership and by raising the profile of homeopathy in general.

The Society of Homeopaths is the largest organisation representing professional homeopaths in Europe with over 1400 members on its Register.

Our members practise in accordance with The Society's Code of Ethics and Practice and carry full public liability and indemnity insurance.

Our Professional Conduct Department offers impartial assistance should difficulties arise between a patient and one of our members."

Not really accurate, is it?

So why did I contact homeopaths? What did I want?

Well, I wanted to know what they thought. Genuinely. Also, what effects they might warn me about (see above about driving for example). Maybe they would have seen an opportunity - they're not going to stop me from overdosing, they could have used this to their advantage. Granted, I'm just one person, but this is (as far as I know) the only overdose of its kind. It's new ground in homeopathic overdosing! Not you're "one dose and you're done" 10:23 campaign (though I applaud that campaign), this is, in total 4 months, or 121 days of overdosing. It's 968 tablets (plus an additional bonus 72 tablets for 10:23).

Here's a quote from Martin Robbins' piece that started it all:

So consider this post an open challenge to homeopaths out there:

How does one overdose on homeopathy?
Why are you not campaigning for clearer information on labels?
Are you as a community mature and capable enough to look at the evidence and reach a consensus?

In the meantime, health authorities are voting with their wallets. NHS Bolton are the latest in a string of trusts to halt the use of homeopathy following the damning verdict of MPs earlier this year on the quack remedies. If homeopaths expect to have any credibility whatsoever, they need to start engaging with questions like those above in a meaningful or constructive way.

They are quite clearly, as an industry, not mature at all.

In the meantime, I maintain that from my experience, if you are a homeopath, you are either an outright fraud, or a child, with your fingers in your ears going "la la la can't hear you" when presented with criticism. Or ,as Ben Goldacre has said "hpaths are an angry nasty bunch, which is why ppl write about them so much!". I wonder if the anger comes from the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, they know it, and their income stream is under threat?

But I'd also like to add that many homeopaths, if they are not frauds, appear to be genuinely horrible people - they believe their quack remedies work, yet they are more than happy to sit back and let a skeptic put their health (life?), and, potentially, the lives of others at risk. That's not the action of someone who genuinely cares about the well being of others.

Granted, my health, nor that of others has ever been at risk from this overdose. However, from the perspective of someone who thinks homeopathy works, then they must think that it has been.

Tonight I take the last overdose.

Soon as I can after that I'll check out what symptoms homeopaths say I would get with my treatment, and we can compare these to the few that I (sort of) got.

For those that have asked about my financial support of the industry, I'm off setting my woo footprint by helping Sense About Science.

Thank you!

2011-03-23T13:32:00.001Z

For those that helped me in the Facebook competition, I thank you.

UPDATE New picture*:

Thanks to JustGiving and AudioFuel for the doantions.

*For anyone fundraising, my prize was a donation from JsutGiving and a programme from AudioFuel. I asked AudioFuel for a donation too, and they did. First rule of fundraising: Don't ask, don't get. I guess on that note, would you like to sponsor me?

Brendan O'Neill misses the point

2011-03-22T18:18:00.000Z

Brenden O'Neill has embarrassed himself in the Telegraph:

I think I have solved one of the great mysteries of the universe: the question of why mop-topped stargazer Professor Brian Cox is so popular. It isn’t because of his looks, or his soft Mancunian voice, or his pop past in Blair-boosting band D:Ream. No, it’s because his wide-eyed cosmology is based on a view of mankind as insignificant, as a mere speck of dust in the post-Big Bang scheme of things, and that chimes brilliantly with today’s rather downbeat view of humanity. The floppy-fringed professor massages the fashionable prejudice that humanity isn’t all that special; no, we’re just a cosmological accident, which will exist only fleetingly before being wiped out by the explosion of our Sun or some other cataclysmic event.

He quite obviously missed the first episode of Wonders of the Universe in which Prof. Brian Cox has the time that we have, now, as a wonder.

From my experience (I'd like to know what other people have found), people seem to come away with one of two reactions when they find out how ordinary and insiginificant the Earth is.

They either get melancholy; or, they get a greater appreciation of how wonderful it is to be here, now.

Watch this:

I feel sorry for people, like O'Neill, who don't get a kick out of that. Who don't get uplifted by that.

Compare Sagan:

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

to O'Neill:

Sagan did more than any other modern popular scientist to promote the idea that the massiveness of the universe, the unfathomability of it all, puts paid to the idea that either the Earth or the humans that inhabit it are special. Earth is a mere “pale blue dot”, said Sagan. There’s no “special significance to this small world”: the very hugeness of the universe mocks “our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe”. As one critic of Sagan put it, he “generalised about the cosmos from his own loneliness”, taking “perverse pleasure in contemplating modern theories about the insignificance of man in the great lonely universe”.

What a nobber.

4chan is the meaning of life

2011-03-21T13:24:00.003Z

With my overdose nearly over I was thinking of another project.

With the free time I'll get from not training for a marathon (as that will be over soon too, I was thinking of the Alpha Course (following Adam Rutherford's talk at TAM London). Any way, had a quick look at the site, saw this. Thank you Gloucestershire, thank you:

Yes, 4Chan is the most popular answer (jointly with three others) to "What is the meaning of life?" in Glocuestershire.

What's the worst that can happen?

2011-03-18T17:31:00.003Z

Discovered this, thanks to Laughing in Purgatory:

Before anyone denounces this as a Pascal's Wager in relation to climate change, hold fire.

We're not discussing the *possible* existence of something. We're talking about an actual, real thing.

Climate change is either happening, or it isn't. We're not talking some possibility about when we die, we're talking hear, and now.

The scientific consensus indicates that human's are causing climate change, and that we're in for a bumpy ride, but if that's not enough to persuade you to take action now, then I do hope the above video will.

UPDATE:

This video's better:

Why am I an atheist? (In answer to Jerry Coyne)

2011-03-18T13:05:00.002Z

I've answered the question before, in response to PZ, but I'd like to add a little more after Jerry Coyne asks: Why are you an atheist? Does it have anything to do with a lack of evidence for god, or are there other factors involved?

PZ's contention is that there can be no evidence for a god, period. Jerry argues, that, whilst none has been presented, it could be possible. This initial discussion led me to state "There is no god".

I side more with PZ, but I'm not going to stick my neck out and say there could *never* be any evidence for God. I strongly suspect this to be the case, but, my limited imagination could be at fault.

However, for there to be evidence for god, we do need to define what a god is, and what it does, and evidence for this. I strongly suspect that this will never happen. I'm almost absolutely certain this is so, but, and for all intents and purposes, you can remove that "almost". For me to be proved wrong will require a theist to get a coherant hypothesis, and, given the time that's been available, I can't see this happening.

So far, there aren't any decent arguments that I've seen. "Sophisticated" theology or not.

Homeopathy overdose: Fourth and fifth symptoms (probably contains more information than you want to know)

2011-03-18T12:30:00.002Z

Well, to do this overdose properly, I must report on all aspects of any ill health. Regrettably, I must now inform you about the state of my bowels.

Yesterday I had an interview for a PGCE place. I usually don't iron my shirts, I let them hang and dry, and they're good enough for the office. However, being an interview, I wanted to look as smart as possible. So instead of getting up, going to the loo, then showering (as is my normal routine), I went to iron my shirt (and at the same time boil some eggs for the presentation I had to give). Alas, I had a case of the runs whilst ironing my shirt. I don't know why. The previous night, I had a chicken linguine from Asda that was discoutned as it needed eating that day. Did this cause it, or was it my homeopathy overdose after nearly four months giving me a genuine symptom? Could it have been that, had I followed my normal routine, I'd never even have worried, as I'd have passed off my morning's motion as a bit runny, but nothing to worry about? None of these thoughts crossed my mind at the time. My main concern was sorting out the mess, and getting to the interview on time.

Thankfully, I'd allowed plenty of extra time, which allowed me to get ready, and to get to a pharmacy for some Imodium (other options may be available, but I just went with the only one I could think of, given the time pressure). When there I found Imodium plus. This would not just (hopefully) sort the diarrhoea, but also wind (and bloating and stomach cramps, but I wasn't experiencing any of these things). Breaking wind in an interview is bad enough, I did not want to discover how I would cope with soiling myself in such a situation, and must admit that until the interview started, I was terrified of breaking wind, lest it was more than gas that was emitted. After it had started, I was totally focused though, and didn't think about my situation until...

During the interview, my sensation of taste changed. Now, the leaflet (there is always time to read the leaflet of new drugs you are going to take. I did this before purchasing them. If you don't read the leaflet that comes with any new drug, you're an idiot) did list this as one of the more common side effects of the imodium, but, of course, this could also be the homeopathy pills finally having an effect.

I'm pleased to report that last night, and this morning, I passed motion as normal, as I poo twice a day usually (both were a healthy Type 4 on the Bristol Stool Scale). The last time I had uncontrollable runs was about five years ago from food poisoning. After my trip to Brazil in '09 I also got the runs, but, thankfully never soiled myself, and had antibiotics to clear them up. I give this background to show that it's quite rare.

This is the first symptom that is out of the blue. Dodgy chicken seems more likely, but, maybe homeopathic pills, when taken for nearly four months, gives you a single case of the runs. Friday of next week is the last day of the overdose.

I'd also like to say to all the homeopaths that have doubted my seriousness and sincerity: I have just admitted, to the entire world (potentially) that I pooed my pants, and my pooing habits. I am approaching this overdose seriously by actually reporting everything. Given the choice, I'd rather not let people know these things, and, I suspect, I might have just taken a dip in readership.

As for the interview, I think it went well. The decision on whether I have a place was made yesterday, but, the interviewers let the Uni know their decision, and the Uni then let me know.

The Society of Homeopaths have replied to my complaint, and (time willing), I'll address this properly next week.

In which I disagree with Bishop Nick Baines

2011-03-15T12:48:00.000Z

I'm super busy, but was in a queue so started catching up on blogs I've not had a chance to read. I also wanted to remind everyone about the Census Campaign from the BHA, and saw this criticism of it: Poor stupid people who need to be told what to think. So here's a super quick reply...

It appears the critics haven't quite grasped the campaign. Firstly, the Census Campaign isn't, as the Bishop says "against the ‘religion’ question", but it is actually for the religious question, by encouraging the accurate answering of the question. No one is telling any one what to think, just to answer the question honestly. If you're not religious, for God's sake say so.

Christianity is on the decline in the UK, despite what previous census data has said. However, as Johan Hari has pointed out: Which two nations still reserve places in their parliaments for unelected religious clerics, who then get an automatic say in writing the laws the country's citizens must obey? The answer is Iran... and Britain.

It's no wonder Bishop Baines is critical. It's also a pity he doesn't link to the campaign himself, only via the two posts he links too. I always think it's better to link directly to what you're commenting on, so people can make their own minds up. Kinda funny, given his title...

So, remember, you're not a Jedi, when it comes to the Census, if you're not religious, then say so.

Also, I don't know Nick Baines' opinion on homosexuality, but he seems to come a bit close to defending some bigots. We need a secualr society because if we indulge every religious whim it's every man for himself, given the mutually contradictory nature of the various religions out there. Just because you're religious doesn't mean you get to have a free card to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc etc. Nick Baines writes:

So, if you ‘believe’ that living according to the precepts of Jesus Christ is good or essential, you are supposed to keep your ‘belief’ in the realms of opinion. But, if you ‘believe’ that no negative judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle, that is a ‘belief’ that can be given free rein. Is that not weird?

No, it's not weird, and I don't think any one is saying that "no negative judgement should ever be made about any other practice or lifestyle". People are welcome to their beliefs, but not to be openly bigoted.

Absolutely vile

2011-03-14T19:15:00.000Z

Luke Hymas alerted me to this absolutely horrid video:

It just shows the completely different mindset between normal people (this does, potentially, include the religious), and those so over taken by their particular belief system.

On the one hand, she wants atheists to find Jesus, and, having prayed for God to send a sign, has used pareidolia to justify this event as God shaking the Earth.

Firstly, it shows a complete lack of awareness of what would actually constitutes evidence. Secondly, if this was evidence for a god, it would in no way make me worship him it.

What is pleasing to see is that, at lunchtime, the "likes" for the video were in the lead. Now it's had some 40k more views, and, thankfully, the responses are more leveled towards humanity.

tamtampamela, if you are reading, imagine this: Your neighborhood had an equally devastating disaster. You then see a video from someone of a different religion, praising their deity for shaking the Earth, in response to fasting and prayer. How would that make you feel?

I wholly recommend you check out Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett and The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. These will at least enlighten you as you as to why we don't believe in your god, or any other.

In the meantime, please think about why you have had such a negative response to your video.

If you want to help the folks in Japan...

2011-03-14T12:55:00.003Z

So busy lately what with the marathon and preparing for interview, in the mean time...

Here's where to go to help.

Please could I have a few seconds of your time?

2011-03-09T13:27:00.002Z

So, London Marathon training is keeping me very busy and away from this blog. This is just a quick note, please could you go to JustRunning on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/JustRunning/131084423623487

There you will I've (when I'm not being EnglishAtheist, I'm being David Wood) posted a link to Ade's Song - written in memory of a young man that sadly died from meningitis.

If my link gets the most "likes", the Meningitis Trust will get a £100 donation.

Thank you so much in advance.

Couple of quickies

2011-03-04T12:54:00.000Z

When this was reported on BBC Radio 2 news, they said "the couple who are morally opposed to homosexuality". Let's get this clear, they are bigots. It wouldn't be right to say "the couple who are morally opposed to black and white people sharing bus seats/women having the vote/leaving female genitals unmutilated". Let's say it for what it is, the couple are opposed to homosexuality for religious reasons. One of the many reasons that I do not like religions.

The Pope has said that all the Jews alive today are not guilty for killing Jesus. Who knew? An entire group of people alive today are not guilty for the possible acts of a tiny group of their ancestors 2,000 odd years ago. How is this stuff taken seriously?

On twitter? Like coffee?

2011-03-01T13:50:00.000Z

Well, the virtual coffee shop is the place for you. The UK charity the Meningitis Trust (who I'm doing the marathon for) have an annual Coffee Break event in March where they encourage people to have a coffee morning, and sell coffee, tea and cakes etc and give the proceeds to the Trust.

Well my friend and I are doing one entirely online. Visit the virtual shop to see our menu, tweet your order (including the hashtag #cb), we'll tweet you your bill, which can be paid through JustGiving (which takes PayPal and most credit/debit cards, so should work all over the world).

We'll then tweet you your virtual coffee.

Enjoy!

Anthony replies...

2011-02-28T13:19:00.001Z

Anthony has taken the time to reply to my blog post, which is nice.

I've not the time to reply properly now, but just to let you know it's there.

I'll reply properly when I can, and after I have read his books, which I have just purchased (offsetting my woo foot print of course. For Anthony's readers, I don't like supporting religion monetarily, and whilst you may well disagree, religion to me, is a form of woo).

Supporting religions by accident

2011-02-25T13:47:00.002Z

Steve Chalke does fantastic work for the charity he founded, and took the crown (from Sir Steve Redgrave) by being the individual who has raised the most amount of money for a single event, £1.85 million. I really admire that. This year he wants to break it:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xfLDXEMSRyo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

UPDATE: As you can see, embedding doesn't work, so here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfLDXEMSRyo

What he doesn't mention in the work that Oasis do, is that they support the Church. I don't feel that this is fair. Firstly, secular people like myself won't want to give, and people of other faiths may not wish to promote beliefs different to their own.

Am I being over sensitive here though?

Skeptical mind = scam safegaurd

2011-02-25T13:02:00.001Z

I got these texts:

18:50 24/02/11 +447516316438 The Government has introduced a Debt Settlement Order, this means people struggling with debt can apply to have it wiped off, to apply txt DEBT. 2 stop txt STOP

and the same again at 01:52 25/02/11 from +447526315186

I must admit, the first one came, I read it, was busy, and ignored it, and then forgot about it.

Undoubtedly these aren't genuine, and a quick google search to find out more about the scam and how to stop it, found James Wiseman's blog which reveals I'm a bit late to the party, as they've been doing the rounds since Jan, here's James' advice:

Reporting

Back in May 2009, the Guardian newspaper wrote an article Spam to go – the new mobile menace. It recommends a number of organisations you can contact.

To complain about an inappropriate text, call the Advertising Standards Authority 020 7492 2222 or go to www.asa.org.uk/asa/contact/

To resolve continual mobile spam despite texting “stop”, contact the ICO on 01625 54 57 45 or go to www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

For help with premium rate text spam, call PhonepayPlus on 0800 500 212 or log on to www.phonepayplus.org.uk/output/Make-a-complaint.aspx

You may be report these messages to your provider. The following links may help:
Vodafone – How do I report spam text messages?

Orange – Stop spam text messagesT-Mobile don’t appear to have any page for reporting, but there are a few suggestions on this post

You can also try NumberCop and DoNotCall.gov

I'll get on and report mine.

It makes me wonder, as they are still going on, how many people have been duped, as it is quite an enticing offer, and not everyone has the natural tendency to question things.

Homeopathy overdose: Third symptom!

2011-02-25T12:26:00.000Z

Last night I felt quite fatigued during my run, and especially so at my capoeira class afterwards.

Now, exercise (obviously) makes me tired, but this was much more than usual, and miles 3 and 4 last night were a particular challenge, physical (and mentally, I had to really push myself to keep running and to not walk. Though, as it turns out, despite the dip in pace around that, I still managed to get a new pb for a 10k, and beat my fastest mile by a second!).

Now, could this be the homeopathic pills not giving me enough rest; or could it have been the cumulative total of 32 miles I'd run since the week began, with 3 hours of capoeira as well, staying late at Skeptics in the Pub chatting, followed by volunteering until 02:30 in the morining on Wednesday into Thursday (after my speed training and capoeira class), with work at 09:00 on the Thursday?

I'll go for the latter, but I felt much more tired than usual, so am reporting it.

Later last evening, whilst tucking into a chicken drumstick, liberally splashed with extra hot Tobasco sauce, some of it flicked off, ninjaed under my glasses and got in my eye. It certainly perked me up enough to watch 10 O'Clock live to the end. I do not recommend it as a method of waking you up, as it is *very* painful.

Stories and evidence

2011-02-24T15:35:00.000Z

PZ's finished his review of Horvath's Christian fanwank, and ended with this quote from him:

"Let's face it," Horvath says, "People are moved as much by Story as they are by Evidence. And we've got the best Story in town."

People are moved by stories. It's no secret that I'm training for the London Marathon, and actually, during my training, there has been a story that's helped keep me going, and given me inspiration.

It's a story about a man that never backs away from evil, always fighting for what is right. He can hang around with judges and prostitutes just the same. He doesn't kill, but let's those receive justice in due course. He's come back from the dead to help fight the sins of man.

Yes folks, Batman.

Recently it was tipping it down with rain, it was muddy, there were ankle deep puddles. I briefly thought about cutting my run a bit short to get out of it, and the thought that came to my head is "Batman would run through this". So that moved me in a quite literal sense.

Seriously though, stories are fantastic things, and can be truly moving. I wish I had the skill to put it in to words, but I don't. Phillip Pullman (unsurprisingly) does in his moving defense of the public library (which for my non-UK readers, are under threat in this country. For my UK readers, do check out the link and help save our libraries):

I still remember the first library ticket I ever had. It must have been about 1957. My mother took me to the public library just off Battersea Park Road and enrolled me. I was thrilled. All those books, and I was allowed to borrow whichever I wanted! And I remember some of the first books I borrowed and fell in love with: the Moomin books by Tove Jansson; a French novel for children called A Hundred Million Francs; why did I like that? Why did I read it over and over again, and borrow it many times? I don’t know. But what a gift to give a child, this chance to discover that you can love a book and the characters in it, you can become their friend and share their adventures in your own imagination.

And the secrecy of it! The blessed privacy! No-one else can get in the way, no-one else can invade it, no-one else even knows what’s going on in that wonderful space that opens up between the reader and the book. That open democratic space full of thrills, full of excitement and fear, full of astonishment, where your own emotions and ideas are given back to you clarified, magnified, purified, valued. You’re a citizen of that great democratic space that opens up between you and the book. And the body that gave it to you is the public library. Can I possibly convey the magnitude of that gift?

Stories, can be, without doubt, wonderful, powerful, moving things. But evidence can be just as much, if not more. Who can not be moved by the fact that whoever you are reading this is the most recent offspring of a succession of generations, who won out in the struggle for survival long enough to pass on their genes, and who stretch back 3.75 *billion* years, that came into existence out of the complex biochemistry at the time, from material which was forged in the heart of an exploding star. I get amazed sometimes, like now, just looking at my hands typing, and thinking of all that goes into those movements, the history that built them.

When you get great stories such as The Ancestor's Tale, or the story of how Einstein came to realise why E = MC² you can the double whammy of being moved by a story and learning new things, based on evidence.

Being moved by stories is great, but not being more moved by evidence shows a lack of imagination in my opinion. As for Hovarth, it appears that he would rather teach you nothing by separating stories from evidence, which makes me wonder if any of his stories would help you learn anything new at all, apart from his narrow world view.

If you want to help the folks in New Zealand...

2011-02-24T12:37:00.001Z

There's an appeal page here:

http://www.justgiving.com/NZearthquake

Electrifying confounding factors Batman!

2011-02-23T13:30:00.003Z

Last night's Skeptics in the Pub was great! It was a talk by Andy Lewis of Quackometer fame (this blog reassuringly scored 0 Canards).

His talk "The Persistence of Delusion" was very interesting, and looked at a lot of quack medicine.

He also had actual old school quackery, namely an Improved Magneto Electric Machine for Nervous Diseases:

Close up of the instructions for treating various ailments:

Andy asked for a volunteer. We all know what came next:

The machine is essentially a dynamo, with you making up the rest of the circuit. It was an interesting experience, I felt it all the way up to my shoulders, with my forearms and biceps twitching like mad. Some said that this could invalidate my homeopathy overdose. At the time I thought "I'm not going to let that get in the way of me getting some good old fashioned quack medicine from an Magneto Electro Machine". Thinking about it though, I don't think that it does.

Firstly, we must remember that I am a healthy individual that is taking a homeopathic remedy, so, I should experience the symptoms which the pills should treat, namely insomnia. Now, this device, I'm sure, isn't injurious to my health, as Andy Lewis seems like too much of a sensible person to risk getting sued. I could be wrong, but I'm still feeling fine now, and slept rather well (though I did dream about the death of a family member).

Secondly, and more importantly, if having an electric current passed through you in some way messes with the homeopathic treatment, then one would hope that it would say so on the packet. My pills make no mention to avoid this. In fact, I couldn't see any mention about it at all. Granted, most people won't encounter a Magneto Electric Device, but, under similar principles, they might go for a TENS machine; they might also try and get their body fat measured, which again works by having an electric current passed through you, and the resulting resistance being measured to work out what percentage of you is fat (as muscle and fat have differing resistance you see); or they could go for one of those arcade games which gives you an electric shock until you let go. There are, surprisingly, many options available to you, should you wish to get (safely) electrocuted.

We are left with two possibilities:

This will have had no bearing on my overdose.

OR

This will have had an effect, and could invalidate me from getting any symptoms from these products (though none have presented in over three months now). Howevber, if this is the case, homeopaths are again being rather cavalier with other people's health by not warning them of these effects, and thus preventing them from getting the treatment they need.

This whole overdose started when Martin Robbins challenged homeopaths to better label their products so one could see what to do if one overdoses. Upon reading that, and being part of the group C, my overdose naturally followed. So, if it is the later, I wouldn't be surprised, as, it seems, no action has been taken by the homeopaths in response to Martin, and the homeopaths I've communicated with don't actually seem to care about my health.

An ontological argument I can agree with

2011-02-23T12:48:00.002Z

Help improve UK medicines legislation

2011-02-16T13:14:00.001Z

Long story short: MHRA are currently asking the public about some aspects of their regulation, including what wording should be on some homeopathic products and this is an ideal opportunity to tell them what we think.

Homeopaths are worried and are trying to organise a way of ensuring they can continue to mislead the public. Here's a template letter you can send to the MHRA (written by @Billysuggar in a comment at my last link):

To: andrea.farmer@mhra.gsi.gov.uk

Ms Andrea Farmer

MHRA, Area 5M

151 Buckingham Palace Road

Victoria, London SW1W 9SZ

...date...

Dear Ms Farmer,

I am writing to you about the MHRA consultation document entitled "Review of Medicines Act 1968: informal consultation on issues relating to the PLR regime and homeopathy".

As a member of the public who values evidence based medical practice, and recognises the dangers inherent in misleading claims for medical efficacy, I am deeply concerned by the current orchestrated campaign in support of unproven homeopathic treatments, and their potential to delay or avoid the application of proven medical therapies, which is led by self-interested homeopaths.

I consider it to be a fundamental duty of a democratic society to ensure that patients and clinicians are provided with clear information about potential remedies which is founded on reliable scientific evidence. This includes homeopathy, the effecacy of which, as you know, is not supported by the current scientific consensus.

I contend that the marketing of any substance which may be offered for sale or application, with an implied or explicit claim of medical efficacy, and which may be considered by patients or clinicians to be suitable as a substitute for, or an addition to, conventional therapeutic remidies, should be subject to the same Marketing Authorisation (MA) requirements as the therapeutic remidies for which they may be substituted.

Therefore I strongly urge the MHRA to move homeopathic products to full Marketing Authorisation (MA) requirements, rather than the NRS or simplified scheme.

Yours

sincerely,

...name...

...address...

So, let's spread the word and get the emails/letters sent.

Thanks.

Survival of the fittest

2011-02-16T12:07:00.001Z

Yes, I know when people say survival of the fittest, it's not necessarily those that can run the furthest, but in this case it is. if you're on Nike+ you might want to stick up for whichever scientific discipline you most identify with and take part in this challenge:

I know biology's best, but surely there must be some chemists that like running? Would be good to have a bit more competition there!

Yes, you could argue that those that are running are spending less time actually doing anything scientific, but that's not the point : P

Self hate with your iPhone

2011-02-08T13:53:00.001Z

So now you can prep yourself for confession on your iPhone with Confession: A Roman Catholic App.

I hate the Catholic practice of confession, or to put it accurately, the Sacrament of Penance. In fact, it's not entirely exclusive to Catholicism. Chairman Mao introduced something similar when he ruled China, regular self-criticism, or jiǎntǎo (检讨). Whatever you call it, I hate it for two reasons.

Firstly, if you've done something wrong, learn from it, and make amends if they are needed. You shouldn't need someone to give a magic incantation - this does nothing - it's your actions after a mistake that are important.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's just nasty. Miranda Celeste explains why in her post A dirty little girl, her head hanging in shame (do read the whole thing):

Then there is the guilt. According to Catholic teaching, humans are born sinners and cannot help but continue to sin throughout their lives. The only way for a Catholic to atone for these sins is to confess them to a priest, do the required penance, and be absolved. As a child, I obsessively recorded in a little notebook anything that I had said or done that could possibly be considered sinful. Then, when the time came for confession, I would recite this list to the priest, my head hanging in shame, my cheeks burning. I’d do my penance and be absolved. For a fleeting, blissful moment, I would feel light and pure and holy. But soon I would sin again, the guilt would return, the little notebook would be filled up with a record of my indiscretions, and I would return to the confessional and repeat the process over and over again.

Or, as Hitchens asks succinctly "How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in an awareness of one's own sin?".

Truly, this is an awful practice, and it is a great pity to see this app.

The difference

2011-02-07T12:04:00.005Z

Illusions of superiority

2011-02-06T19:38:00.001Z

A recent exchange reminded me of this fantastic video from the ever excellent Theramin Trees on this brilliantly titled paper: "Unskilled and unaware of It: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments"

His videos are all brilliant, you should check out his others!

10:23 Challenge

2011-02-05T11:51:00.000Z

I was hoping to take part tomorrow, at the same time as everyone at the QED conference, but then I realised my homeopathic remedy came 72 tablets a box and that today is 72 days since my long term overdose started, and I liked that. With the 10:23 challenge being for the weekend of the 5th and 6th, I took an entire packet at 10:23 today.

Since my long term overdose started, I've taken 8 tablets every day, which is 2 more than the maximum recommended dose (2 tablets 4 hours before bed, 2 tablets immediately before bed, and, if needed, a further 2 during the night). That's 576 in total, and 144 more than is recommended. Today takes me up to 216 more tablets than needed. I might take another pack tomorrow though - it was actually quite nice eating that many at once (I have quite a sweet tooth).

It's at this point I should inform/remind people that one of the principles of homeopathy is that like treats like. So, under homeopathic principles, caffeine could be used to treat insomnia. No, this doesn't make sense. However, as I am fit and well, taking a homeopathic treatment should give me the symptoms it is trying to cure. I chose an insomnia remedy as I sleep really well, and am a fit and healthy individual. Also, as I hated supporting the industry, I offset my woo footprint by donating to Sense About Science.

So far, I'm feeling fine - the only bad things I've experienced since this overdose were a cough in December, and a stiff neck in January.

In fact, with my marathon training having gone up a notch, I'm actually feeling better than ever, and am consequently sleeping *really* well too (after running 8 miles, then having an hour and a half of capoeira, I think most people would sleep really well!).

Oh, I can't really mention my marathon, and the not say "Please sponsor me, it's for the Meningitis Trust" : P

On creationism, with me and @DarkBlondAngel

2011-02-04T19:42:00.002Z

Deborah Hanscombe tweeted this today:
DarkBlondAngel
What a surprise @DrEvanHarris whining about religion again, if a God exists, can he smite this man down?. lol. Please RT lol.

In reply to these:

DrEvanHarris
Proposed Free School plans to teach creationism. http://bit.ly/dECVrj More here: http://bit.ly/gKxCuO via @BHAnews

DrEvanHarris
Pastor in comments at http://bit.ly/dECVrj "Creationism will be embodied as a belief" at the schl but won't be taught in the sciences" but..

DrEvanHarris
Also "Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory". Doesn't understand what a scientific theory actually is (Show him Gravity someone!)

We then had a wee conversation on the merits of creationism in school. There was a little misunderstanding, and I had to sign off of twitter before the conversation was concluded, so, in answer to the tweets using more than 140 characters, here's where I was coming from, and this also serves as my tweeted promise "Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later".

I was talking about Creationism as I see it - something to replace the teaching of evolution in schools, even if, as Deborah points out, evolution and the origins of life are different things. However, in the context of the tweets from Dr Evan Harris, it was originally in the context of the old creationism vs evolution battle, so I think my misconception was fair. For example, in Dr Harris' links:

According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".
The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word, and that God is the "creator of all things".
Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church leader and the driving force behind the free school bid, confirmed that creationism would be taught across the curriculum, should the school be given the green light.
"Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."

The word "theory" is abused by creationists as the word is misunderstood. Evolution is "just a theory", but a theory in science means our best understanding of how something works, given the available data, not, as is often used colloquially, "just a hunch". Likewise, the idea that disease is caused by germs is "just a theory" (indeed, there are still people who dispute that viruses, bacteria and fungi etc cause disease. Never get health advice from these people!).

I am all for children having religious education (this is true everywhere, but this is in the context of the UK) - it is important to understand the Bible, as it has had a massive impact on our culture, and is needed to understand many common phrases eg "Doubting Thomas" (Richard Dawkins lists many in The God Delusion, but a friend is borrowing my copy, so can't reference I'm afraid). It is also important to have knowledge of other's beliefs. Funnily enough, some of the best religious knowledge comes from atheists. However, religion should be taught in a secular fashion - "This is what so and so believe, however this and that believe something else". They are, after all, all myths (if you are religious and reading this, how would you define the beliefs of other religions?). Even if you're not happy with your religion being taught as such, you must remember that the others will feel the same about their religion.

Creationism, and indeed other religious ideas should stay out of the science class room. Time is limited. Showing the huge wealth of evidence for evoulution should suffice - for example, radio metric dating can be taught to show the age of the Earth. It's not then needed to have a comparison with the Young Age Creationists, and their method of added up the ages of the various genealogies.

All ideas are not equally valid. How does this idea for car repair compare to a qualified mechanic?

When an idea has been tested for over 150 years, with lots of people trying to disprove it; when it has made predictions that have all been shown to be true; and when every single item of evidence ever found fits the idea beautifully, then you can give it more weight as an idea from some nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago who thought bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19)

Here's the full conversation, with a few notes:

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Goodness me! Think you'll find @DrEvanHarris is campaigning for good education, something you evidently missed out on
(I regret starting off insulting Deborah's education. No way to have a discussion. Sorry Deborah)

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist @DrEvanHarris You're for cleansing the education system of religious content. Creation is part of Religion, get over it.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel No, I'm *for* religious education, just not in science lessons. Also, creationism should be taught as myth, not fact

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist None of the theories on creation; Scientific or otherwise, are factual. We don't know how life arose. Idiot.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Easy there hot head. I said creationism should be taught as a myth. I'm well aware evolution is a theory...
(See, I started off with an insult, and it carried on. I should know better)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel ...a theory as well supported as the theory that germs cause disease

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist We know how life evolved.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel And our theories of abiogeneisis are coming along just dandy too youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDd…

DarkBlondAngel
The only Atheists to engage with me, are brainless. Only one Atheist I know, has actually agreed with what I was saying. Others can't read.

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist And what @DrEvanHarris knows about Science, can be written on a postcard (a small one).

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Probably using techniques that Feynman talked about. You can read them in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"
Great book, highly recommend it. Th passage I refered to was Feynman talking about putting all the books of the world in space three square yards in size.

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist Creationism, in the sense of "The Universe" should be taught as a religious theory, not excluded altogether.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel I've not said exclude all together, I've said keep out of science lessons, and teach as a myth, like other religions

EnglishAtheist

@DarkBlondAngel This conversation might be better via email where we have more than 140 characters englishatheist@gmail.com

~~Deborah chose not to engage in a conversation with more than 140 characters, but did retweet this.~~ UPDATE: I have either made a mistake and thought I saw it retweeted' or the retweet has been undone, as it is no longer there.

DarkBlondAngel
Its a theory, not a myth. Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang". Both are theorys. Granted one is less likely. That is the point though.
Which is it? The tweet starts "Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang", but finishes "Granted one is less likely". Both statements can't be true.

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist Wait, a God creating a Universe, is a religious theory, should be compared alongside others. Not different lesson.

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist That is a matter of opinion, there is no evidence to give one; a higher validity than the next. #Fact
No, it is a matter of fact. Evoultion has a wealth of evidence. Creationism, none.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Erm, yes there is. Start with On The Origin of Species by Darwin, then read Why Evolution Is True by Coyne

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist That is evolution, I am talking about creation.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Yes, but it is almost certain that evolutionary principles will be needed in our understanding of abiogenesis

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist There is no reason why a lesson couldn't compare and discuss the various theories. Religious ones included.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Also, you know full well creationism is trying to be taught instead of evolution (well, I assume you do)

DarkBlondAngel
I'm not even religious. It is however wrong to ignore the tiny possibility of a "higher being" having created everything that we percieve.

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Surely that is the lesson, Evolution has proven elements of creation to be wrong. Yet there are elements yet to dissprove.
I assume that the "elements yet to disprove" referred to creationism. Hence my reply later.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel But time is limited, best not waste it on nonsense

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel What about pots of gold at the end of rainbows? Should that be taught in physics, along with light defraction?

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Not the same, we can prove Rainbows have no end as such, are atmospheric phenomena.

EnglishAtheist

.@DarkBlondAngel What elements are there to disprove? (Excluding the fact you can't prove a negative)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Creationist type logic: But you've never been to the end of a rainbow to find out

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Creation of the Universe? Errrm whats Matter? Errrm how does life start? Etc. We know how it works, I grant you.

EnglishAtheist

@DarkBlondAngel Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later

DarkBlondAngel
Oh sure, Run Away! Atheists, attention seekers! Talk about Science, an then know nothing about it. lol.

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist I think you're brain is at an end of a Rainbow. I think you should have paid closer attention in Science class yourself.

Care to comment Deborah?

Homeopathy overdose update: I wish to register a complaint...

2011-02-03T12:09:00.002Z

...about these homeopaths what I contacted not two and a bit months ago.

The Society of Homeopaths recommended that I contact a registered homeopath. I looked on their list of registered homeopaths and contacted six. Twice, on Nov 30th and again on Jan 8th. I have heard nothing from them. I am therefore registering a complaint. I shan't reproduce it here, as the process for complaints says it should be kept confidential, which is fair.

So, instead, here's the Dead Parrot sketch instead:

Also,this weekend is the 10:23 Challenge. Alas, I can't make QED, and will be busy during the weekend, but will take the time to take a massive overdose at 10:23, in addition to my usual overdoses. If you're in Cardiff, join in too. Actually, if you're anywhere in the world, take part!

If you buy any homeopathic products, you can offset your woo foot print.

In answer to PZ part 2, in which I disagree with him a bit

2011-02-02T12:34:00.000Z

PZ Myers asked "Why are you an atheist?" and went on to describe some of his peeves with atheists. In my last post I answered with why I'm an atheist, and will now point out where I think PZ's wrong to be peeved. It is this bit:

"Babies are all atheists or I'm an atheist by default, because I was raised without religion. Nope. Uh-uh. Same problem as the Dictionary Atheist — it implies atheism is simply an intellectual vacuum. Babies aren't Christians or Muslims or Hindus, and they aren't atheists, either, because we expect at least a token amount of thought is given to the subject. If babies are atheists, then so are trees and rocks — which is true by the dictionary definition, but also illustrates how ridiculously useless that definition is.

Babies might also have an in-built predisposition to accept the existence of caring intelligences greater than themselves, so they might all lean towards generic theism, anyway. Mommy is God, after all.

There are a fair number of adults who ought to know better who insist on the dictionary definition, too. They've been brought up without god-belief, and some of them may not have even considered religion much at all. Unless they are real lightweights, genuine feathers adrift in the wind, they also carry a set of values that incline them towards godlessness…otherwise you'd expect them to fall on their knees and turn Christian the instant they first hear about Jesus. They don't, and why? Probably because they learned some critical thinking skills from their parents. They carry positive values that make them resistant to the cheap promises of faith."

I would actually like to see an increase in this category of atheist.

Granted *right now* you'd be a fool to say religion isn't important in the world. However, I think it would be great to see more people raised godless, who don't really consider religion at all, and get on with their lives, in the same way, that lots of people don't believe in ghosts, or the Bermuda triangle, or crystal healing. There is a lot of nonsense floating out there, and there are not enough hours in the day to take a serious look at it all.

I would like these people, when pressed, to explain they've never considered it as it's just ridiculous nonsense, and it would be great if this could be the way the majority of people are raised.

This is easy for me to say though, Britain is already, or at least getting close, to the point of religious types being in the minority.

I think it is the above type of atheist that help this. At school, I was very interested in religion (well, still am), but a lot of people just didn't bother considering it.

As the BHA highlights, there's still plenty of work to do in becoming more secular. Also, I don't think the States are ready for more of these atheists, as, if they're not considering religion, then they won't be considering such issues as atheism in schools and such.

However, ultimately, I'd like these people to be the norm. A man can dream...

Why I'm an atheist. In answer to PZ (Part 1)

2011-02-02T12:01:00.002Z

PZ asked Why are you an atheist?

I wrote this on Facebook before my blog, which does answer PZ:

A little on what I beleive...

There seem to be some misapprehensions about my beliefs and thoughts about religion. So, to clear things up, here's brief note on what I believe. I say brief, but it’s obviously going to be quite long. But it’s a big subject. Also, please use the comments if you disagree with me, but at least read all of this before you do. I’m writing this in my lunch hour off the top of my head, and haven’t the time to search for links etc, so if I make claims, but haven’t given the evidence, just ask, and I’ll back up my assertions.

Firstly, I don't think religious people are stupid because they're religious, I think someone is stupid, if they're stupid. Said stupid person could be an atheist. I do think religious people are deluded. Sadly, this has negative connertations, but I'm not sure what other word to use. The same has come for ignorance. Neither of these mean that someone is stupid. I think that a religious person is deluded, because I think their religious beliefs are wrong (factually, potentially morally, but that very much depends on the individual’s beliefs). This shouldn't be insulting though - even with the up most respect for others’ beliefs, a Christian for example, will quite clearly think a Hindu is deluded, or indeed that I am, for not accepting Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. Why do I think religious people are wrong? Well...

I used to be a Christian (C of E), I would go to Sunday school regularly (Blandford Camp’s Rainbow Club), though it was a very casual religious upbrining. At school I took extra religious education classes – religions interest me. I left the Rainbow Club, as, after a few years, it got a bit boring going over the same Bible stories. At school I began my drift away from belief. I’d ask questions, and not get answers – for example, I can remember being fobbed off to rubbish answers to my questions. For example, if God wants everyone to be a Christian and praise him, couldn’t he have put a little more effort in than sending Jesus to the Middle East, and then letting a bunch of murderous religious zealots spread it to the rest of the world? (I can’t remember my exact phrasing, but I mistakenly showed my poor geography by placing the Middle East in Europe in my question. The answer to my question he gave highlighted that I had got that bit wrong, and was left at that. There wasn’t an actual answer to my question). The obvious question about a “God of the gaps”, as another example, was just rephrased back at me. Alas, if I was me now back then, I’d have been a bit more forceful and asked for an answer, as it was, I got my rubbish answer, and meekly replied yes. You live, you learn.

So, the more I thought and asked, the more religion didn’t seem to make sense, and just seemed made up. By the time I left school I was an atheist. I was quite quiet about it though (unless asked, or in an actual religious debate), but, after 9/11, and then when I read Sam Harris’ and Richard Dawkins’ books on religion after uni, I became more vocal.

I don’t dogmatically stick to atheism though. I just want a reason why I should believe a certain religion. Because I say “I don’t believe that” does not mean I’m saying it’s impossible, I just want evidence.

So far, I have seen no evidence for any religions, but I have seen evidence for how religions can be explained as a psychological product of the mind. If I was given good evidence for a religion, I would change my mind.

I can also state what kind of evidence I would be looking for. (Whereas I’ve found religious people can’t say what kind of evidence would make them change their mind about their beliefs).

Stuff like this would be good: If the chances of catching a disease at Mecca were reduced, or at least the same, as people's day to day living. As it is, pilgrims at Mecca are at more risk of disease, as one would expect from so many people in so small an area.

Someone praying for an amputee, and their limbs coming back, would also be good evidence.

These things are not evidence: Religious texts - the Bible contradicts the Qu'ran and vice versa. If you accept one, why not the other?

Personal revelation is also out – you may very well be sure you experienced something, but there are countless others from other faiths, who have had their own revelations, which contradict yours. If you are religious, and think you have evidence, imagine someone of an entirely different religion who had similar evidence to yours. Would it convert you?

I hope you get the idea.

I don’t believe that rejecting propositions for lack of evidence makes me closed minded.

I am against religion. This is because from all that I have seen so far, religion appears to be nothing more than a quite elaborate superstition, that is very widely accepted. That’s not why I’m against it though. Whilst I do acknowledge that there are good parts of religions, I feel that on the whole, religions are a Bad Thing for society. Dogmatic views can lead to bigotry (for example religious homophobia), holding back scientific progress (for example stem cell research), just wrong on so many levels (the stoning of raped women to death for adultery) and, well, 9/11. Yes - that last example is from a religious extremist, but without the moderate take on religion, you wouldn't get the religious extremist. I know this wouldn't solve the problem, as nutters are nutters, but it’s a start. I forget the exact quote, and who said it, but “Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, you need religion”.

Religions are also, by their very nature, divisive.

That said, I do believe in religious freedom - people should be free to believe what they like (though acting out these beliefs should have restrictions when they impinge on others). For complete religious freedom, one needs a secular society. The laws of the land should not favour one religion over another, this would not be fair. Laws should be decided on the merits of the issue at hand, not from centuries old religious dogma from nomadic goat herders who didn’t even have concepts of a lot of modern day life. So, for example, I think that halal and kosher meat is inhumane, and shouldn’t be exempted from the animal welfare laws on slaughtering animals.

Whilst I am for religious freedom, I am intolerant of some religious beliefs. For example, the whole hoo ha by the Catholic adoption agency over letting gay couples adopt – not based on any evidence of whether children raised by straight couples do better than those raised by gay couples, for example, but solely because of their ingrained religious homophobia.

Whilst I know that religions are deeply held personal beliefs, and that discussing them may cause some one to be uncomfortable or offended, I don’t thing that that’s a good reason not to discuss them. If people can have their political views etc challenged, why not their religious ones? Obviously, there’s a time and a place, and I do admit to getting the time and place wrong, but I’m a Bear of Very Little Brain and far from perfect.

People say that Science is my religion, but I will have to disagree. Here’s why:

Published science gets into journals via peer review. When a paper is submitted, it is reviewed by other people, independent of the research, who are also knowledgable on the subject, to determine if the paper is up to standard. As with all systems, this one has its flaws, but it’s the best thing we’ve got at the moment (feel free to offer an improvement here). Once it is published, it is then open to the criticism of everyone. Poor papers get knocked down, or stand up to the onslaught, and our knowledge moves forward.

From this, we get theories. A scientific theory is not the same as a hunch. It’s our current, best understanding of the information available. They are open to debate, but some theories can be seen, essentially, as true beyond all reasonable doubt.

For example, that bacteria can cause disease, is “just a theory”, germ theory. Likewise, the theory of evolution, is “just a theory”, but it is true. How do we know? There are 150 years of evidence to back it up. Yes, it is true that something might come along and disprove both of these – as with any other theories, but nothing has yet. If I’m to not believe in evolution, or that germs cause disease, then I want some pretty outstanding evidence.

Believing in scientific theories is not religious. It is not dogmatic, it can move forward, unlike religion, which has changes because of it – witness geocentrism. Galileo was right, though the church said he was wrong. Indeed, the Pope said that whilst Galileo was correct in his assertions, the Churches actions were the right thing to do.

That said, people can stick to “scientific” beliefs dogmatically, look at the odious Andrew Wakefiled spinning bucks of his discredited, and demonstrably incorrect, assertion that vaccines cause autism.

Science is wrong all the time, and says so. However, as it moves forward, it becomes increasingly more right. Back to evolution as an example, the central concept of random adaptions being non-randomly selected is good, but there are debates about the gene centred view, kin selection etc. This drives it forward, and enhances our understanding. As evidence of science moving things forward, I offer what ever device your reading this on – be it a computer, mobile or whatever.

If science knew all the answers, it would stop. Religion claims to know all the answers (God did it).

The Bible doesn’t change, nor do other religious texts – people may reinterpret, or change existing views to accommodate new evidence.

Now, I have been called a fundamentalist atheist, but I’m not sure how any of this is fundamental. I’ve also been told that, as a fundamentalist atheist, I have radical and extremist behaviours, and adhere to a set of beliefs. Again, I’m not sure how that above lines up with this. I hardly call engaging in (albeit it at time heated) discussions, tweeting, or writing notes on facebook as radical and extremist. If you’d like to enlighten me though, I invite you to do so in the comments below.

If you really want to make a comparison between me and religion, you’re better to chose my support of Manchester United (but I’ll not hear a word against the Holy Trinity of Ferguson, Giggs and Cantona) : P

Thanks for reading!

I've since changed in stance slightly, and go so far as to say there is no god.

In my next part, I'll disagree with PZ's post a bit.

Whilst I'm talking about Prof. Brian Cox... Astrology

2011-01-26T00:19:00.001Z

He and Dara O'Briain rubbished astrology on Stargazing Live, and the Astrological Association of Great Britain is irate, and have a petition, which in addition to apologies etc says "We also request that the BBC will commit to making a fair and balanced representation of astrology when aired in the future."

Whilst I echo Martin Robbin's sentiments:

On the second sentence at least I think we can all agree. I'd love to see the BBC give a fair and balanced representation of astrology. In fact sod it, let's extend that to all newspapers as well.

Such a representation would depict astrology as a pseudoscience with no real basis in evidence that was already being ridiculed in the Dark Ages, and note that after thousands of years astrologers still can't produce statistically meaningful results.

I'd like to add that currently astrology gets free reign on Steve Wright's BBC Radio 2 Show, just the other day I had to turn over when astrologer Sara Delphi came on (six days left to listen, if you want to waste your time).

"Sara Delphi is a leading clairvoyant, astrologer and expert in Tarot and Palm reading. For the past two years Sara has been one of the team of astrologists on the Steve Wright in the Afternoon Show BBC Radio 2."

So, I put it to you Astrological Association, exactly what do you mean by balance? On the one hand we have a BBC show that highlights the fact that astrology is bunk, and on the other a show that says it isn't and has, if Sara's website is to be believed (though she does make her money by either being deluded or a fraud) a team of ~~astrologers~~ astrologists. Isn't that balanced?

Homeopathy overdose half way mark

2011-01-25T23:56:00.000Z

Well, my homeopathy overdose is two months in now.

I must confess that last week I didn't get enough sleep. However, this was because I was reading "Why Does E=MC² (and why should we care?)" by Professors Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. It was excellent, and I couldn't put it down, even when it was time for me to get some sleep.

I've nothing against physics, but found biological sciences more interesting, and so, haven't done physics past GCSE, as I chose biology, chemistry and maths for A Level. Consequently, my knowledge of physics, whilst probably a little above average, isn't as strong, and it was great to read and learn something entirely new.

I enjoyed the way the book was written, and now have a clearer understanding of Einstein's theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity. It was also really good to get a bit more knowledge about the Higgs boson, and a bit of deeper understanding of the LHC.
My friend Chris did say he spotted a couple of wee errors in the book, but I don't think these get in the way of the points they are trying to make.

It would be interesting to see what university level physicists make of the book, but I'd give it a 10/10, and will read it again, as I'd like to get a firmer grip in my head of the contents of the book.

Blue Monday

2011-01-17T12:46:00.000Z

Blue Monday's bull. My friend Tom and I had a short lived science vlog, and here's my contribution from then:

Ben Goldacre's got a good little summary.

So instead of PR BS, let's have a bit of New Order:

A thought about homeopaths

2011-01-14T20:26:00.001Z

The great Rhys Morgan tweeted the 10:23 campaign to 360homeopathy, who I'd not seen before, so I checked out her website, and saw this emphasis mine):

I stumbled upon Homeopathy many years ago when I had a colicky baby and a co-worker suggested these white little pills to put under her tongue. I didn't think much about it as I wasn't really that interested in what it was but more that I wanted to give my baby some relief.

My initial thought was "Wooah, how could you not care what was going into your child?" I'm fortunate enough to have some very good friends. I'm not a father now (but hopefully in the future), but I'm fairly sure that even if my Hypothetical Partner (let alone any of my friends) had white pills to give to my Hypothetical Child, whilst I'd trust her completely, I'd still very much want to know what it was that was being given.

It made me wonder if this is one of the differences between supporters of alternative medicine, and skeptical types like me. Even if I trust someone *a lot* I still want to know the whys and wherefores. I guess "Why?" is just a big part of my life, and less so for others...

(I don't know why this is though, ha ha)

Kenneth Tong

2011-01-12T23:37:00.004Z

From Natalie Onions:

If you're unfamiliar with Kenneth Tong, this is good.

If you have heard of him, or wish to discover more abut this odious being, read Johann Hari's interview with him, you can get the full transcript or the write up.

PS Regular readers might remember, he was one half of what made me angry the other night.

UPDATE: @DavidAllenGreen tweets: A footnote to the @MrKennethTong affair. The charity Beat confirms he has not actually given or offered any donation, sizable or otherwise.

Cough up Tong!

ANGRY! Don't check twitter before bed

2011-01-09T01:47:00.000Z

Well, dang, there I was just tweeting my blog post and ready to go to sleep, then I see these two tweets:

Firstly, from @timminchin
Fury rating: 5. Lucy Johnston should (but won't) be fired for this story. Incompetent, immoral, shit journalism. http://bit.ly/fkvryJ

People die from flu, and also from fear of vaccines in general (also see the Jenny McCarthy body count on the bottom right hand side of this blog). I don't like the whole fear mongering in the press, but if you feel the need to whip things up into heightened levels of unnecessary fear, why not go for the "Flu vaccines running out, we're all going to die" approach? You don't even have to start being truthful (I know it's hard for you), and could blame it all on immigrants taking away vaccines from us good, honest, hard working Brits.

Secondly, from @davidallengreen
Jack of Kent blogpost: has @MrKennethTong admitted to a criminal offence? http://bit.ly/fsnUtQ

I haven't got much to add to his blog post, only that it makes me sad to be reminded that people like Kenneth Tong exist.

I'm going to read some Winnie the Pooh before sleep now.

Homeopathy overdose: Second symptom!

2011-01-09T01:20:00.000Z

The NHS Choices website says the following on warming up before exercise:

Should I warm up before exercise?
Warming up is essential before your training session. “Without a warm-up your workout won't be as efficient as it could be,” says Robin. “Your muscles will be less supple, so you're more likely to injure yourself.”

Given I play capoeira and am training for my sixth marathon, I already know that.

So what you might be thinking?

Well, my house mate has just got an XBox Kinect, and we were playing Fighters Uncaged on it. As my housemates commented I was "proper going for it". Result is, I've pulled something in my neck, and it's really quite painful when I move in certain ways.

Whilst this has nothing to do with my homeopathy overdose, it will quite probably affect my sleep, and even if it doesn't, I'm reporting all adverse aspects of my health.

Of course, my first symptom and this are not really symptoms at all, and (ignoring the butterfly effect and all that) I would have got them whether I was overdosing on homeopathy or not. It does make me wonder how many genuine medical issues have been ignored when someone developed an actual medical condition whilst involved in a proving, and didn't get it seen to, as they put it down to the remedy and not to genuinely being ill.

Time for bed now, it's well past my bed time!

Homeopathy overdose: Frauds and children

2011-01-07T13:50:00.004Z

Well, it's been over a month since I started my homeopathy overdose, and my sleep is, as yet, undisturbed (apart from being woken towards the end of December by a mouse. I don't think any homeopath is going to claim their insomnia remedy works by bringing mice in to produce disturbed sleep as a symptom to cure disturbed sleep).

What's been most interesting to me is the reactions of homeopaths.

Dana Ullman of Homeopathy Education Services sadly no longer trusts me, and doesn't wish me to quote his emails. Despite seeing my willingness to correct my mistakes and the fact that I was genuinely asking questions about homeopathy, I was told I lacked a spirit of enquiry and had false assumptions. In an email I wrote "Also, I have updated my blog accordingly. I did make a false assumption when you mentioned combination remedies, I also realise that for a proving you'd obviously want just one the one substance, otherwise you couldn't attribute what caused symptoms. However, isn't it time for combination provings? Take two things together, which are known to produce certain symptoms, and see what happens if taken together." Surely this demonstrates both my willingness to enquire, and also demonstrates my ability to correct false assumptions I've previously had.

(Incidentally, in my last email to Dana I said "I will be blogging about this exchange, but will keep it entirely anonymous if you prefer, and refer to you as "a homeopath". Given that I've dealt with people from the USA and the UK, this should be sufficient." As he didn't reply, I've made the assumption that he won't mind my identifying him).

The Society of Homeopaths told me to see a registered homeopath. I got in touch, by email, with six local registered homeopaths. Not one has got back to me. I'm contemplating registering a complaint with them.

The night before last there was also this tweet from @homeopathy info:
Another skeptic being treated for mental health problems [also @tkingdoll @mjrobbins] worries about placebo effects http://bit.ly/e8mXg3

However, as @mjrobbins tweeted:
The response to @homeopathyinfo 's pathetic use of depression as a smear on me and the others is heart-warming http://bit.ly/fUPHZ5

Ben Goldacre described homeopaths as "hpaths are an angry nasty bunch, which is why ppl write about them so much!"

I tend to agree - I'd like to add thin skinned as well. Also reckless with the health of those that don't beleive in, and question, homeopathy - they quite clearly say that there are risks to a homeopathy overdose (see the article that got this whole thing started), however, if someone goes ahead and (in their eyes) puts their health at risk, they don't care.

In the original article, Martin asked of the homeopathic community: Are you as a community mature and capable enough to look at the evidence and reach a consensus?

Quite clearly the answer is no. The questions that springs to my mind is: How many of them react this way because they are willfully perpetrating a fraud; and how many are essentially children with fingers in their ears going "La la la! Can't hear you! La la la!"?

(I'm aware that the above might be a false dichotomy, but I really can't think of any more than those two ways to describe them, but I'm open to suggestions).

Social Media Anthem!

2010-12-15T23:13:00.001Z

The Drybrook Male Voice choir, parody Engelbert Humperdinck's "Please Release Me".

Marvelous!

Tell the BBC how important faith is to you

2010-12-12T15:20:00.000Z

BBC Rado 2 has a three part radio show, The Great British Faith, starting at 22:00 tomorrow. This, despite faith being on the way out in the UK, and no mention anywhere of those without faith.

As part of that, they're encouraging people to contribute to the Great British Faith map.

Radio 2's Hardeep Singh Kohli journeys to three of the most exciting cities in the UK, Cardiff, Leicester and Glasgow. In doing so he tells the story of faith in Britain today.

Share your experience. What does your religious faith mean to you? How has it influenced your life and continues to do so? We'd like to hear how important your faith is to you. Email, including pictures and audio, to: greatbritishfaith@bbc.co.uk

This is our chance to email the BBC and tell them how important faith is to us. We can't all be as succinct as Dawkins*, but the BBC are asking us to let them know. We should respond.

Also a good time to remind you all of the BHA's Census Campaign.

*"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." Richard Dawkins

Stephen Neary

2010-12-08T12:15:00.000Z

Graham Linehan tweeted this post from Anna Raccoon.

Essentially, due to daft legislation, Stephen Neary who is autistic was put into respite care for three days whilst his father was ill. This was December last year. Some truly daft legislation is keeping him "in care", away from his father, which causes him more distress. Please read the full story. Then do at least one of, if not all, of the following:

After next week, no one will be able to write of Stephen’s case. It will vanish behind the stone walls of the Court of Protection. Just one more file.

You can help by giving this case as much publicity as possible over the next few days.

You can sign the petition demanding he be returned to his family. (Currently 2,286 signatures).

You can write of Stephen’s case on your own blog.

If you still have time to spare, might I suggest that you write to whichever Daily Newspaper you read and ask them why their pages are full of tittle tattle from illegally released diplomatic cables – and yet they can never find the space to illustrate true injustices happening to a British citizen right under their noses?

Please let's get on this guys.

Homeopathy overdose - first symptoms!

2010-12-02T00:39:00.002Z

Well, as I mentioned in my first post on this, I do sometimes do voluntary shifts with a charity, at night. This is one of those nights.

My sleeping has been fine, and nothing out of the ordinary.

I do however have:

A sore throat/cough.

I have had it since Monday, and it still persists.

On Saturday, I was in Liverpool, doing a street collection for Breast Cancer Campaign (raised £396.60 in loose change)*. I was outside from 09:30ish until 18:30ish (with a few breaks in between, in total I'd wager, about 45 mins). I also got drunk that night, but was in bed by midnight.

Sunday I went to Manchester, my car thermometer said it was minus four as I parked in Manchester. This time it was Marie Curie Cancer Care I spent from about 10:45ish to 17:00ish (though took more breaks, total of about 1h 15 inside) outside.

For this, I did have six layers on, including a beautiful tiger onesie from Primark. However, I had no gloves, and my face was entirely exposed.

Whilst collecting, you're speaking all day to people, encouraging them to put their coppers (or to be honest pound coins, notes, and if they want to be totally old skool, cheques), into your bucket.

Now it *could* be my homeopathy overdose at work here, or it could have been the excessive time in the cold, using my voice. However, I'll be reporting any other out of the ordinary stuff as I go along. Ordinary stuff would just be more boring than usual, after all.

This is also a suitable time to high light the next 10:23 campaign - they're looking for 10 countries, 23 cities, and more than 1023 activists.

*Also a time to end a misconception - people collecting loose change on the street are always volunteers, and don't get paid a penny. Unless they're doing it illegally. Always check they have a copy of their collecting permit on them, and a sealed container for the money.

Cheltenham SITP success!

2010-12-01T13:57:00.002Z

Cheltenham Skeptics in the Pub got off to a great start last night! We had 31 people in all (though the demographic was unsurprising, got me thinking cap on about how to combat this), and had to get more chairs from upstairs, which was pleasing.

On top of that, I really enjoyed the talk, Breaking the Crop Cirlce, given by Trystan Swale of Righteous Indignation podcast fame.

It was an entertaining talk about the world of the people that make crop circles; why people believe in them having origins other than; and why the evidence given for this falls flat.

Top moments include Trysten finding out his old biology teacher was in the room; the pie I had (beef and venison) and the Cotswold Humanists being kind enough to give away lots of books which needed new homes.

It also left me quite tempted to make one.

This was followed by a fun q & a session, and after that, a bit of mingling. I got to meet, along with lots of lovely people, CJ, who's a really interesting guy, and I hope I'll get to have a longer chat with over a pint or two.

Next meeting's Nervous Laughter: Promoting Science and Skepticism through Comedy, on January 25th, 19:30.

Given by Dean Burnett, a recently qualified doctor of neuroscience, and a stand up comedian to boot. You can check out his blog Science Digestive as a warm up!

Massive thanks to Sall and Will for getting it all together!

Open season on Pope jokes!

2010-11-29T22:30:00.000Z

A Scottish referee was sacked for making a Pope joke, specifically, this picture:

To quote Richard's post:

Hugh Dallas, head of referee development for the Scottish Football Association has been sacked because he passed on, by eMail, a joke about the pope. His dismissal was called for by a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This nasty little weasel is called Peter Kearney, Director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office. His details, in case you feel like sending him a message, are as follows:

Peter Kearney, Director, Scottish Catholic Media Office, St George's Buildings, 5 St Vincent Place, Glasgow G1 2DH
eMail: mail@scmo.org

Similarly, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, responsible for this craven giving-in to Catholic censorship is Stewart Regan. The address of this coward is Scottish Football Association, Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9AY
eMail info@scottishfa.co.uk

It would seem, from the YouTube video posted here, that the joke concerned is the one that heads this page, warning children of the approach of the pope. The caption was censored, but it isn't difficult to find the original. It is at http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/caution-pope.jpg

My suggestion is that we should do our best to make this joke go viral, beginning by sending hundreds of copies of it to these two addresses:
mail@scmo.org
info@scottishfa.co.uk

But there are probably funnier jokes along the same lines, and I would encourage you to send as many as you can find.

Richard

The Pope deserves no respect, and even if you do respect him, he is not above humour.

Vaccinate your kids

2010-11-29T22:07:00.000Z

Found this at Acid Fairy (thanks!)

Homeopathy overdose update: Homeopathic Educational Services can't read

2010-11-29T21:13:00.002Z

In my previous post I showed that instead of taking my overdose seriously (which you would expect, given I'm playing about with my sleep here. Am I going to be safe to drive, or operate heavy machinery?), the British Homeopathic Society chose to label me as mentally ill. (I emailed Lisa for any comment, she replied "Dear David, I have no comments to make about your blog. You will see in my signature my role in the BHA/Faculty and I have no opinions on the matter. Lisa Peacock, Education & Web Administration Officer").

The Homeopathic Educational Service demonstrated their inability to read and follow links:

David,

Anyone who engages in a "homeopathic proving" (an experiment in which a HEALTHY subject is given continual doses of a potentized homeopathic medicine with the intent to discover what symptoms it will cause) must not have any health issues at present and must NOT know what medicine they are taking. It is intriguing that Martin Robbins, who has previously demonstrated an unscientific attitude, does not follow these basic scientific guidelines. I am also guessing that the "insomnia" remedy he plans to take is a homeopathic combination remedy (a remedy with multiple ingredients)...THAT is another no-no, further evidence of the straw man Martin is famous for creating...and it is probably a lower potency than 30C.

One should take a 30C of a remedy once or twice daily until symptoms emerge (up to 30 days).

Please note that homeopaths do not find that every subject will experience symptoms of a proving, though the majority of people experience symptoms of the medicine ingested as determined by Kent's REPERTORY, a list of symptoms that each medicine has previously been known to cause and/or cure.

I give you this advice without any encouragement from me for you to engage in a homeopathic proving. It is your experience and your risk.

Dana Ullman

Notice how Dana thinks it is Martin who is overdosing, and not myself.

I linked to the product I am taking, Boots insomnia tablets. They are indeed a combination remedy, as you can see (active ingredients Kali brom, Coffea, Passiflora, Avena sativa, Alfalfa and Valeriana). No guessing needed.

So, this leads to some questions:
If combination remedies do not work, why can I find no evidence of homeopathic organisations complaining that they are selling useless remedies? Indeed, I have found support for Boots and their homeopathic range.

It's also interesting that homeopathy doesn't work in combination. Caffeine for example isn't a pain killer, but when added to aspirin, can make it more effective. One wonders why combinations of homeopathic remedies don't work.

UPDATE: Dana pointed out, correctly, that he wasn't saying they didn't work, but that combinations shouldn't be used in a proving (which makes sense - unless you want to test known remedies in combination, to see if they can have compound effects like aspirin and caffeine). It does appear, however, that he doesn't quite grasp that I'm here to overdose on homeopathy, and not to undertake a "proving"

My tablets are 6C (though this info is on the box, and I couldn't find it on the web link, to be fair), which we are told, is not potent enough. So where is the evidence that 6C isn't as good as 30C or above? Isn't this also important information to have, and very relevant, to working out what safe and unsafe doses of homeopathy are? Also, if 6C isn't potent enough, again, where are the homeopaths bemoaning the poor products from Boots?

Also, given their lack of rigour in reading just one blog post, I am left with a lack of confidence in their ability to assess peer reviewed journals.

They finish with "It is your experience and your risk." Which does really back up Martin's original post that started this all off. There is, as they say, a risk to homeopathic overdose. So why does no one explain what one is, and what one should do if you overdose by accident, or on purpose?

Homeopathy Overdose update: British Homeopathic Association call me mentally ill

2010-11-26T17:08:00.001Z

I asked three homeopathic organisations this:
Hi, I am embarking on a homeopathic overdose. http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2010/11/homeopathy-overdose.html I wondered if you had any comments to make on this, in terms of the potential risks to my health, what I might expect, and your thoughts on if what I am doing is reckless etc I look forward to hearing from you, David

All three replied! Two of the responses, I feel, merit posts of their own. The third I'll combine in a post with some further thoughts on homeopathy. I've a busy weekend ahead, but thought I'd get this post out now, and the other two on Monday.

Lisa Peacock of the British Homeopathic Association wrote:

Dear David

As an organisation that works with fully trained doctors we would be concerned that anyone is considering overdosing on any type of medication. I would suggest you contact a mental health professional, a doctor or The Samaritans immediately as it maybe that you are suffering from some kind of mental problem.

Kind regards

Lisa
Lisa Peacock
Education & Web Administration Officer
British Homeopathic Association
Hahnemann House
29 Park Street West
Luton LU1 3BE

Email: lpeacock€britishhomeopathic.org
Direct line: 01582 408676
http://www.britishhomeopathic.org

This doesn't deal with my issues at all. What I am attempting to do is highlight the issue that homeopathy doesn't seem to offer any explanation for safe and unsafe dosing. Given that in "proving" (where homeopathic treatments are tested) healthy individuals are given the treatment, to find out what symptoms result, and thus what symptoms can be treated in an unwell individual (as in homeopathy like treats like). If in proving people experience symptoms, this is potentially quite serious because then, surely, we should be expecting there to be an unsafe level at which these treatments shouldn't be taken. If not, why not?

As Martin Robbins says:

Of course this may be because they don't really know. In that case homeopaths should be working as hard as possible to reach a collective, evidence-based consensus on what, if anything, is actually 'an overdose', and what the public should do if they take one. That would be the ethical, responsible thing for the industry to do.

What the BHA have done is not only trivialise this issue, but also mental health, by suggesting that by choosing to potentially disrupt my sleep in a personal investigation of how homeopathy affects me, that I am mentally ill.

Mental illness is a real issue for many people, and for reasons I won't go into, is another cause that is close to my heart.

You would have hoped that they would have read what I sent them, and realised that I was being sincere with my request for advice, as I finished the post saying:

Of course, so far, there is no consensus on what an overdose constitutes. I am potentially putting my health at risk. I really value my health and well being. Such is my believe that with homeopathy, there is nothing in it.

I do hope I am not proved wrong.

Given the direct challenge from Martin, and the fact that they are presented with someone who is actually going to be overdosing, every day, for four months, brushing me off with a trivialisation of this, and mental health, leaves me with a very poor impression of the organisation indeed.

As for the overdose: I followed my dosing instructions (but with 4 pills each time, not two). Last night I slept as well as I normally do, went to bed a wee bit later than normal as went to see London Boulevard (good film, but it's gritty and quite violent, so may not float everyone's boat). Felt good this morning. Have the usual tiredness one would expect with a Friday. Feeling good though - it's been a great week at work!

Also, I did say that I'd be looking at the active ingredients to find out what I could be expecting to experience. I will do this at the end of the experiment, granted this is hardly the most controlled of experiments, but if I am unaware of exactly what symptoms I will get (as there is no insomnia to treat), then it's about as blind as I can keep this.

Homeopathy overdose

2010-11-25T17:32:00.002Z

So, as I mentioned on Wednesday, prompted by Martin Robbins challenge to homeopaths, I am going to start overdosing on homeopathy for a prolonged period.

I have selected "Boots insomnia tablets", for a couple of reasons:

1) It is very rare for me to have any problems sleeping at all. Consequently, as homeopathy operates under "like treats like", and I don't have any problems with insomnia, one would expect me to start having problems with sleep. This is something I really don't want to do, as I am very busy, all the time, and sleep is important!

2) Boots have a 3 for 2 offer on. I'm not on a massive wage, and this is out of my pocket, so I can stock up on the cheap! On top of that, I don't like to give my money to stuff like this, so will "offset" my homeopathy support by fundraising an equal amount to Sense About Science. Feel free to help me out on this front!

How to overdose? A number of suggestions were given to Martin, but the majority seemed to imply taking the dose over a longer time frame than was recommended. The instructions for the pills state:

Two tablets four hours before bed and two tablets immediately before bed. A further two tablets may be taken during the night if required. Tablets to be sucked or chewed and to be taken between meals.

This gives a max dose of six tablets in a day. I would like to go crazy and take a packet a day, but in this age of austerity, I will take 4 tablets at a sitting, giving me a total of 8 in a day. I will continue with this for four months.

I will have pen and paper next to my bed, in which I will record my bed time, and how I feel in the morning.

I do voluntary work on a night shift, about once a week, which results in a bed time of 02:45ish, contrary to 23:30 when I normally go to bed. I get up for work at 07:30, I usually hit snooze once though. I usually don't feel so refreshed on a morning after the night shift, but haven't found it affecting my work. My sleeping patterns at weekends aren't as defined, but I'll make a note of time to bed, and time up.

If the Boots is out of stock I can't help that, but I intend to start this experiment later today.

I've not had a chance to fully investigate what the active ingredients that have been diluted do, but will do so, and in my next post on this. This will allow me to detail what symptoms should appear. This means that if I get ill with something unrelated, we can see whether any of the symptoms of that match what we would expect, and also, if my arms drop off, we can discount that as an effect of the homeopathy, and more on my failure as a chainsaw juggler (you get the idea).

As Martin says:

...homeopaths should be working as hard as possible to reach a collective, evidence-based consensus on what, if anything, is actually 'an overdose', and what the public should do if they take one. That would be the ethical, responsible thing for the industry to do.

Obviously I am a subject of one, this gives me no degrees of freedom, so any results will only serve as an anecdote, and won't help in this challenge. However, we know from such an approach as Martin has challenged the homeopaths to produce, if any one did this with paracetamol, they could kiss their liver, and then their life (that order) good bye.

Of course, so far, there is no consensus on what an overdose constitutes. I am potentially putting my health at risk. I really value my health and well being. Such is my believe that with homeopathy, there is nothing in it.

I do hope I am not proved wrong.

Buring the Koran shouldn't be a crime

2010-11-25T14:24:00.000Z

So, a child's been arrested for inciting religious hatred by burning the Koran.

A video was posted on Facebook, which got reported, and here we are. (It's not the first this has happen either). That the actual burning of the Koran was two weeks ago, no one at the time seemed to have minded. The video went on Facebook - I'd like to know if it was clearly labelled. If so, no one has to watch it.

The BBC quotes:

Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said burning the Koran was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that she could imagine.

She said: "The Koran is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide."

"You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Koran, washing before touching it and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books and we will never destroy the Koranic texts."

"We believe it is the word of God. God's guidance for us in this life," she added.

So what I say? Why is that relevant?

We have Muslims in this country who would prescribe execution as the penalty for gay sex, but with differing viewpoints as to whether death should be by stoning, immolation by fire or throwing offenders off a cliff.

That's very offensive to me, and no doubt even more so to anyone who's bi or homosexual.

People are entitled to their opinions and beliefs. If people want to burn their own property (safely) then that is their right. Likewise, people can be racist, homophobic, bigoted. We don't have to like this, their opinions will offend us, but they are allowed to express them.

So long as no one is coming to any harm, what is the issue?

Total self indulgence

2010-11-24T12:41:00.000Z

So, I've neglected this blog (and reading everyone else's) of late, as work was really busy. I'm the Digital Media Officer for the Meningitis Trust, and we've *just* launched a new website, which is here: http://www.meningitis-trust.org

So please feel free to check it out and give us your feedback!

(It wasn't just me that built it, my collegaues (and, also rather nicely, friends) Richard and Julie make up the wonderful trio that is the Trust's digital team).

I'm well chuffed with it!

Whilst I'm plugging that, I might as well mention the iPhone app we've made too.

Oh, and I'm running the London Marathon for the Trust too.

Normal blogging soon (which will include the beginning of a long term overdose of homeopathy, after the Lay Scientist's post)

Allah misses a trick

2010-11-15T17:08:00.000Z

Hajj would have been a perfect opportunity for Allah to give us some evidence for his existence. Every Muslim, if they can afford to and are well enough, should journey to Mecca for Hajj, a pilgrimage during the 8th to 12th day of Dhu al-Hijjah, the 12th and last month of the Islamic calendar. (Pilgrims can go at other times in the year, called Umrah, but it is Hajj that forms one of Islam's Five Pillars).

Millions of pilgrims attend, and, as one would expect with so many people in so small an area, the risk of infection rises massively, hence frequent calls to remind pilgrims that they must have the available meningitis vaccines for example.

Of course, this seems a little sadistic if Allah does exists. He has essentially brought a lot of people together and not bothered with a wee miracle to keep the dieseaes (he created) at bay (which, given the fact he made the universe and all, you'd think wouldn't be that hard).

People die on Hajj.

What a waste.

Cheltenham SITP - Tues 30th

2010-11-15T13:01:00.001Z

Cheltenham SITP is properly up and running! Big thanks to @Jin_Shei for sorting it all out.

The Strand in Cheltenham on the last Tuesday of the month.

For the full Cheltenham SITP experience, check out: the website, twitter, Facebook and you can email Chelt.Sitp@gmail.com

The first talk will be "Breaking the crop circle" by Trystan Swale of Righteous Indignation podcast fame:

Plasma vortices, extra-terrestrial communication or manmade works of art - the annual summer crop circle season continues to inspire, encourage debate and amuse. Having been fascinated with the whole phenomenon since a child, Trystan Swale analyses the various claims as to their origins and explains why the myth is one that will continue despite the wealth of evidence for a man-made solution.

Improving on Mother Teresa

2010-11-12T23:42:00.000Z

Famous Mother Teresa Prayer- The Final Analysis Prayer

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.

I saw this prayer today, and if it could end here, it would be quite a nice little set of aspirations. The last line spoils is:

In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.

Do good for goodness' sake. It seems to me far better to just do good things for no reward other than it's the right thing to do. Doing good just because you're hoping for a reward at the end is hardly the most noble of intentions.

Also, what we do is about "us and them". I really dislike this notion that what we have here, right now, isn't really that importnat, it's the afterlife that really matters. It seems like such a wasteful world view. What we do here matters, and our actions do impact on each other.

So, instead, I'd much rather have this as the last line:

In the final analysis, this is the only life you have, so you'd best be excellent to each other. And don't let the bastards grind you down.

Questions for Rodial

2010-11-12T00:19:00.003Z

So, I've been through all of Rodial's products.

Below I have copied their claims of "clinically" proven, or where they've said x% increase in that. In addition, I've higlhighted some other claims which lead me to questions, which I ask afterwards. Please note that these are genuine questions, for which Rodial may offer me answers.

I'll be calling at lunch time later today to see if they will provide me with any more evidence for these, or answer the questions asked below. As Ben Goldacre and Rhys Morgan have been turned down, I don't hold out much hope, but will be chuffed if I'm being needlessly pessimistic.

UPDATE: I called Rodial, and I was told that they couldn't answer any of my questions at all. I asked why, and the receptionis said "I'm not sure". Alas, the internet at work was down, so I now have to catch up this afternoon. This evening I'll email trading standards, as claims are made for which no evidence is given so I am unsure if these claims are accurate, and other claims are made (for example, how "Boob job" works) that seem contrary to what I have learnt.

If I'm not given any evidence, then I shall write to Trading Standards, and this blog post will be the main body of my concerns.

They are currently suing Dalia Nield, so I won't comment on the efficacy of these products, but will let you draw your own conclusions about products from a company that claim to be scientific yet sue when challenged, instead of giving evidence; and also (so far) fail to provide evidence to any one that asks for it.

Glamoxy Snake Serum (no, srsly, they sell snake serum!)
"This revolutionary oxygenated, viper-inspired serum contains syn-ake; a neuro peptide that mimics the effects of the Temple Viper's potent venom to instantly lift the face, freeze muscles and plump fine lines and wrinkles." Do you really want to mimic this?
"Fiflow BTX (oxygen carrier) - encourages cell respiration to fill and plump the skin, whilst adding instant radiance." How does this increase cell respiration, and, why/how do cells that respire more plump the skin?

Glamtox serum "glamtox serum is the product to erase sun spots and hyper-pigmentation, repairing damaged skin from the harmful rays of the sun." Possibly dangerous if it gives people the idea that they can repair their skin from sun damage. Skin cancer is a serious issue, it's best to use sun block, and cover up, or stay in the shade. Post care can't repair the effects of ionising radiation on your DNA.

Glamtox eyelight pen I have nothing to say about this product.

Glamtox night "glamtox night is clinically proven to reduce the appearence of crows feet and deep set wrinkles, whilst norishing the surface of the skin. glamtox night is your 'must have' night treatment!"

Glamtox sticks "Rich in collagen peptipeptides (natural bioactive protein) that trigger the synthesis of new collagen fibres, and are clinically proven to improve the skin’s moisture level, smoothness and suppleness, hence preventing skin ageing." Pentapeptides - five amino acids strung together. Surely any good quality protein will sort you out, say, a glass of milk? Vitamin C isn't mentioned, but is vital for collagen synthesis.

Glamtox SPF 18 I have nothing to say about this product.

Glamtox cleanser "Increases collagen production resulting in plumper hydrated skin" Is there evidence for this claim?

Glamtox Peel "...and Argirline which works to reduce stress in the skin and to relax contracted muscles..." Muscle relaxant sounds like an active ingrediant - shouldn't that be classed as medicine?

Glamtox eye light SPF15 "This ground-breaking product will not only reduce puffiness, but is clinically proven to help shift those stubborn dark circles." Also says "Restructures and repairs the delicate eye area" What does restructuring of the eye area mean?

Glam Balm
"30% reduction of fine lines and wrinkles;40% increase in lip volume;
Increases collagen production resulting in plumper, fuller skin" Evidence of increased collagen production? By how much, given fine lines, wrinkles and lip volume have been measured?

Glam Balm wipes "Opthalmologically tested, suitable for even the most delicate skin types."

Glam night pack "The glam night pack contains 10 1ml sachets of the NEW glamtox night which has been re-formulated into a amazing lightwight gel to strip 10 years off the face overnight." 10 years!? Really?

Glamtox cleanser pack I have nothing to say about this product.

Tummy tuck sticks "Green Clay- this clay is rich in silica and minerals which help reduce bloating." How?
"Fennel Seeds- eliminate waste and gases, making the tummy appear flatter." How?
"Pineapple and Papaya- contain enzymes which help split proteins and help the body break down food quicker." Unsure what they're getting at. Do they mena that the contents of your stomach will pass into your intestine faster? Do the enzymes in the fruit get digested themselves, or do they indeed help the body's own digestive enzymes?

Tummy tuck "A REVOLUTIONARY stomach flattening formula with stomach flattening micro fibers helps slim and visibly tighten the abdominal area" How do the micro fibres help?
"clinically proven to reduce the abdominal area by up to 2 centimetres in 8 weeks"
"fig extract and neuropeptides break down fatty cells and boost cell metabolism" Do they actually break down fat cells, or do they mean reduce the fat within a fat cell?

Boob job
"Boob job works with your natural fat cells. As the fat cells move around the body after eating, boob job "blocks" the fat into the area where the product has been applied, so the bust and décolleté areas."
This is contrary to what I learnt about lipoprotein metabolism at uni (where my Animal Science degree specialised in nutritional biochemistry). I recall it was something like this, and that adipocytes (that's fat cells) stayed put.
"The key ingredient Sarsasapogenin is extracted from plants and as it is a phytosterol there is NO hormonal activity" So it's not acting like a hormone, yet a physiological effect (larger breasts) results, so what type of activity is happening, why is Sarsasapogenin important?
"Myrrh Resin increases the number of fat cells and enhances fat storage in the hypodermis bust area, resulting in an increase in cup size." How much increase in fat cells?

Bum lift "Cellulite is reduced by a whopping 32% and thigh/buttock girth can be reduced by up to 3.8cm. The skin firmness is improved by 60% and stretch mark appearance is dramatically altered."

Body sculpture "clinically proven to reduce the hip and thigh area by up to one centimetre; breaks down fatty deposits reducing celullite and “orange peel”

Stretch mark eraser
"Boosts collagen production" By how much?

Body deodorant I have nothing to say about this product.

Skinny beach sticks
"Active ingredients, including betacarotene and lycopene, help to build up the tanning pigments in the skin, which provides a powerful layer of antioxidants to protect skin from free radical attacks. What’s more they help to build your natural UV protection levels. Green tea extracts are teamed with meadowsweet which will encourage fat combustion and limit the absorption of lipids." Can they back this up, and do they still encourage standard safety with the sun?

Skinny beach SPF 15 (clear)
"It also contains peptides that will help to boost your natural tanning ability, leaving you with a darker, richer tan, but in less exposure time, furthermore your tan will last longer. Meanwhile caffeine, carnitine complex and saccharide salt work together to rid the body of cellulite presence, reduce swelling and water retention and to improve the overall firmness of the skin." Again, I might be wrong, but shouldn't these kind of things sit with a pharmacist? (Also comes tinted - same claims)

Brazilian tan airbrush
Nothing to say, execpt this is found in "Suncare". Does it actually offer any protection from the sun?

Brazilian tan dark "the darkest self-tan in the market today" Claim based on?... Also, as above, in suncare, but does it offer protection from the sun?

Brazilian tan light I have nothing to say about this product, except, it's in suncare, but does it offer protection from the sun?

Brazilian tan daily Likewise with the above, I have nothing to say about this product, except, it's in suncare, but does it offer protection from the sun?

So there we go, that's every Rodial product I could find.

I will, of course, update with any evidence given to me etc

Libel reform, it's very, very important

2010-11-11T12:57:00.004Z

Yesterday I took part in the Mass Libel Reform Blog, but today two stories have really drummed home just how important the campaign is.

Firstly: As regular readers will know, conservation is important to me. I got around to joining the RSPB yesterday, and so was dismayed to see Simon Singh tweet this:

Twitchers should twitter about RSPB being sued http://is.gd/gVAn2 Bird-lovers pls back #LibelReform & sign www.libelreform.org/sign

Essentially, two researchers' (Gordon and Christine Bowker) methods were questioned by RSPB, as to whether they helped with the black grouse's decline (which the researcher's were hoping to combat).
Someone who really cared about both bird conservation and proper science, would re-evaluate and improve their methods, and move on, or, would give evidence that their methods were, in fact, sound. Science is built on constructive criticism. Finding out you've made a massive mistake isn't easy (especially if it's gone and helped the very thing you were hoping to fight). However, the researchers are suing instead, because of our daft libel laws. This wastes the RSPB's time, which is better spent with what they do best: conservation. It also highlights how they are more concerned with how they appear than by doing any good.

Secondly: Rodial produce a number "beauty"* products, whose efficacy I won't comment on, as if I do, I may end up in the same boat as Dalia Nield, who Rodial are suing. In the Daily Mail she questioned whether their Boob Job cream works.

Dalia Nield, a consultant plastic surgeon at the London Clinic, said it was ‘highly unlikely’ the cream would increase a woman’s bust size and questioned the amount of information provided by Rodial.

It's understandable why she said this. Rodial say:

Boob job works with your natural fat cells. As the fat cells move around the body after eating, boob job "blocks" the fat into the area where the product has been applied, so the bust and décolleté areas.

This is contrary to what I learnt about lipoprotein metabolism at uni (where my Animal Science degree specialised in nutritional biochemistry). I recall it was something like this, and that adipocytes (that's fat cells) stayed put.

Rodial may sound "sciencey", and their tag line may be "Nature. Science. Skin care", but their actions in suing show them to be the very anti-thesis of scientific debate.

As you can see everything is under threat: from charities' conservation efforts right through to your consumer rights to not be sold dodgy stuff that doesn't work, but claims to.

Please, at the very least, sign the libel reform petition. It is *vital* that we reform the laws in this country.

If you fancy donating, that would be even better, their JustGiving page is here, or you could get the Geek Calendar, whose profits help the campaign, and whose pages showcase the UK's geek heroes in ways you will have never seen before.

What ever you do though, please get involved.

It matters.

*read this to understand the quotation marks. Before following that link though, please sign the petition.

The Mass Libel Reform Blog – Fight for Free Speech!

2010-11-10T14:00:00.000Z

This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.

The English libel law is particularly dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.

You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.

The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.

If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.

We must speak out to defend free speech. Please sign the petition for libel reform at
http://www.libelreform.org/sign

Why are you still reading? Go!

Vote Ann Widdecombe!

2010-11-09T17:01:00.002Z

I've blogged about the Bad Faith Awards, but @simonmhickson, of Trev and Simon fame (who are national treasures), re-tweeted this from @sunny_hundal:

Blogged: : Ann Widdecombe is not a National Treasure, she's a very nasty person http://bit.ly/cCqVJy

Read the post, but here's the rap sheet:

She is anti-abortion and seems to have problems with embryonic stem cell researchwhilst not fully understanding the science behind it. Scientists didn’t want to create a human/animal hybrid Ann.

She is anti-Sex Education.

She supports Homophobia as long it’s by religious people (It’s free speech you know.)

She supports tougher drug laws.

She seems to think that the Church of England apologising for the Crusades and slavery “makes them look silly”.

She believes in censorship.

She is one of the idiot MP’s who wanted Terrorism suspects detained for 42 daysdespite no evidence that it would help investigations in any way.

She is against political parties trying to help get more women into Parliament.

She seems to agree with PETA on some things (they even gave her an award).

She insisted that Tories “throughout the Thatcher period” had always cared about the poor.

She writes for the Daily Express.

She was opposed to the repeal of Section 28.

She is a climate change denier.

She left the Church of England because they started ordinating woman.

In 1996 she defended the Governments policy of shackling pregnant women with handcuffs and chains when in hospital

So, please, let’s vote for her in the Bad Faith awards. It’s a good opportunity to voice your contempt for this horrible, odious and thoroughly unpleasant person.

UPDATE: I'll leave the original article intact, but following comments below, I just want to highlight that the above rap sheet comes from a post on Pickled Politics, and was written Martyn Norris. Credit should be given where credit is due, and I don't really deserve much for this post, as it's barely anything original from me.

I hearby defame Nadine Dorries

2010-11-08T22:13:00.000Z

Nadine Dorries MP and her blog first came to my attention when ~~Jack of Kent~~ David Allen Green (new legal correspondant for New Statesman - well done!) re-tweeted this blog post from @Gaijinsan21:
Nadine Dorries is a Liar and Unfit to Hold Public Office

David Allen Green further explained in this blog post how Nadine Dorries is using her blog to mislead her constituents, citing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards report as evidence.

He also said:

For example, she recently resorted to a blog post to raise implicit allegations of impropriety against a constituent who had been engaging with her on Twitter; and then, only last week, she made direct allegations of criminal activity against a critical blogger.

Today, Nadine Dorries has replied. Without linking to the New Statesman piece, she says:

For example, David Allen Green wrote a blog in last week’s New Statesman which was verbally aggressive and accused me personally of attacking a constituent via my own blog. He failed to mention that in an email from Kerry McCarthy MP, to Glen Owen, at the Mail on Sunday, said constituent was described as 'the local Labour party organiser' by Kerry and that on the local Labour party web site, she was also described as having been selected as a candidate. On the same web site (which the local Labour party have now removed, but we have the screen shot) she described herself as the web organiser for the Labour party in Bedfordshire.
Not quite the same thing as attacking a constituent is it?

Two things come to mind:

1) Firslty, she says nothing about the deceit in her blog. But then she can't, as she has admitted to it herself:

My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. It is written as a tool to enable my constituents to know me better and to reassure them of my commitment to Mid Bedfordshire. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another.

(Paragraph 81 of the report).

2) Does it really matter if someone is in a different political party? That's not grounds to make false allegations against someone, and, on top of this, I was under the impression the MP was there to represent their entire constituency, even those that voted against them.

She then finishes with a massive helping of irony:

And so to Katherine's blog, I would like to add another uniting, unique attribute on the left. They lie.

David Allen Green won a blogging award last year. For deliberately making such misleading statements on his blog, maybe he should consider handing it back?

To which, I have to echo David Allen Green's sentiments:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Nadine Dorries - you are a liar, and unfit to hold public office. You're also comedy gold.

In defense of Stephen Fry

2010-11-05T13:20:00.001Z

Not that it's needed of course, he has an excellent post where, as usual, he does a phenomenal job.

However, following the misreporting of what he said, I just wanted to highlight the following from Steven Pinker's "How the mind works" (Chapter 7: Family Values, Page 470, Penguin books, ISBN-13: 978-0-140-24491-5)

"The psychologists R. D. Clark and Elaine Hatfield hired attractive men and women to approach strangers of the opposite sex on a college campus and say to them, "I have been noticing you around campus. I find you very attractive," and then ask one of three questions: (a) "Would you go out with me tonight?" (b) "Would you come over to my apartment tonight?" (c) "Would you go to bed with me tonight?" Half the women consented to a date. Half the men consented to a date. Six percent of the women consented to go to the stooge's apartment. Sixty-nine percent of the men consented to go to the stooge's apartment. None of the women consented to sex. Seventy-five percent of the men consented to sex. Of the remaining twenty-five percent, many were apologetic, asking for a rain check or explaining that they couldn't because their fiancée was in town. The results have been replicated in several states. When the studies were conducted, contraception was widely available and safe-sex practices were heavily publicized, so the results cannot be dismissed simply because women might be more cautious about pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."

Men and women really are actually different, and whilst it's obvious we both enjoy sex, we do both approach it differently.

Bad Faith Awards

2010-11-05T12:45:00.001Z

The New Humanist's Bad Faith Awards are amongst us again, and you have until 26th November to get your vote in. We're spoilt for choice:

Lauren Booth

Prince Charles

Pastor Terry Jones

Cardinal Walter Kasper

Sheikh Maulana Abu Sayeed

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi

Baroness Warsi

Ann Widdecombe

Jenni McCreight makes a good case for Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi and it nearly convinced me, but I'm going to have to vote for Ann Widdecombe. I think it's because of the fact that she's a crazy that's a lot closer to home. See her in action.

Even more Amaz!ng

2010-11-05T12:20:00.000Z

I posted last month about the Million Dollar Challenge, and the assets being there, ready for any one that can prove their paranormal claim.

Two further things on this:

Firstly, Jerry Coyne highlighted a paper which supposedly shows people being influenced in there choices by stimuli after they've chosen (only just catching up on Why Evolution Is True, it's from Oct 31). James Randi has, of course, highlighted that if this trial can be replicated, then the Million Dollar Challenge would have a winner.

Secondly, despite having a very speedy response to my quiry about Bank Statements, I was pleasently surprised to have a letter from James Randi himself, with copies of the statements in. Given that the amount of time it takes to read the JREF website's info, and, if further proof was wanted, to send an email, it quite clear that if any one tells you the money is not there, they have clearly not spend the 5 minutes needed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that JREF sit on the assets.

James Randi wrote:

"Enclosed is a copy of the March Prize Account statement. This is separate from the regular JREF operating accounts. I do not have available a more recent one at the moment, since all these documents are presently at another JREF office in Virginia. The current (October) statement is similar to this one, but the assets figure is now considerably higher.

The actual amount of the awardable prize is one million dollars, not the total amount shown. We occasionally draw on the interest for special purposes, when necessary.

I trust this documentation serves your needs, and I thank you for your request"

Yes, it certainly does serve my needs, thank you very much!

Needless to say, but I have made a donation to cover the postage costs.

Homeopathy & Nutritionists vs Real Science!

2010-11-04T12:25:00.000Z

Mega bust at the mo', so barely had time to read other's blogs, let alone do anything here.

However "@londonnutrition" popped up in my "Who to follow" on Twitter. Groups like that set me off, so the above video helps calm me down.

What with some other recent nutritionist encounters, I think I've a massive pseudo-science rant brweing.

Don't be a douche

2010-10-28T13:13:00.005+01:00